Jump to content

Talk:Equus (genus)

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

"Latin equus, "horse",[1] cognate with Greek "ἴκκος"

[edit]

I've tentatively changed this to say it is cognate with ἵππος, as this is the more usual version (used in all dialects except Ionic) and added a ref for the LSJ entry for ἵππος, while retaining the ref for ἵκκος in the appropriate place, although that ref's utility is limited as the LSJ merely defines it as "=ἵππος". Additionally, I've retained the previous version by noting it as the Ionic variant. I imagine the Ionic variant was used here to make the relation to Latin equus more clear, although, as far as I am aware, this is not the usual practice on Wikipedia or elsewhere. I have also added a ref noting that ἴκκος is the Ionic variant of ἵππος.

One more thing, I changed it to say that the Mycenaean form is the earliest attested, since the ancestor word of equus and i-qo is, of course, in unattested PIE.

If this is disagreeable to anyone, feel free to revert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.235.190 (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; it is standard to also include PIE.zzz (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian Wild Ass

[edit]

Why are the Mongolian Wild Ass and the Dzeggetai listed as separate subspecies? Links from both refer to the same page where the subspieces name of each is said to be synonymous. It seems to me that that means that they are not separate subspecies. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Check with User:KimvdLinde she's the resident taxonomist. Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hind gut digestion of cellulose?

[edit]

As a point of clarification--well, I am not 100% sure of the information and have no documented source, but I recall reading from numerous sources that horses and other equines have no ability to digest cellulose in the hind-gut, and the "heavy lifting," biochemically speaking, is done by bacterial fermentation of cellulose in the hind-gut, the bacteria in question having a symbiotic relationship with their hosts and producing useful amounts of protein as byproducts. Is this an appropriate detail to add, assuming it can be verified, or would it be excessively pedantic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.24 (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

[edit]

I separated into a subsection the seven living species of Equus. I came to this article to look for that information, and found it difficult and tedious to extract it from the extinct species and the subspecies in the complete table. I left in the subgenus labels as that gives an idea of how the seven species are grouped, and I do not think it impedes legibility. Nick Beeson (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are multiple articles on the genus and a need for some general cleanup... Montanabw(talk) 01:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is the Temporal Range still right?

[edit]

Evolution_of_the_horse#Genome_sequencing now suggests that the last common ancestor of modern horses, donkeys, and zebras existed 4 to 4.5 million years ago. So I think that means this article needs updating in that regard. EdwardLane (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, the Hagerman Horse which is listed in the article as one of the oldest known members of the genus originated around that time as well, mid-Pliocene, which seems well attested. Somebody's been using outdated info in the infobox, or mistaking "range of the genus" as meaning "time range of modern-type horses". 83.254.154.164 (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Equine"

[edit]

Perhaps this is a horse literature convention, but anyway: usually when the ending "ine" is used, it denotes a sort of common version of the subfamily name. "Equinae" in this case. But if so, the use here is wrong, equine would not refer to Equus, but to a higher taxon which includes other (extinct) genera. Of course members of Equus are equines as well, but in this article, it is used exclusively for members of one particular genus. Similarly, we wouldn't refer to cats as "felines" throughout the Felis article, since this also refers to other members of the subfamily. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It IS a "horse literature convention" as most people aren't that well-versed in scientific terminology (just like everyone confuses theory and hypothesis!) In practical terms, people say "equine" as an easy way to say "horse, pony, donkey, or mule and maybe zebra! It's even embedded in the law: [1], [2] (I've always felt that the language that it is unlawful to allow a "jackass" to run on the oopen range to be open to an amusing double meaning! LOL!) Montanabw(talk) 22:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, equine really does mean horse, donkey, mule, or zebra in all but the most strictly taxonomic of literature. This is very much the common usage. As such, I think the current situation where the taxonomy section specifies "extant equine" and the rest of the article uses "equine" is a good compromise and I am removing the cleanup notice. Iamnotabunny (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Composite pic

[edit]

Hey gang, I like the new composite image but you have two zebras and not one single domestic horse? c'mon! e.ferus caballus is feeling left out! Montanabw(talk) 23:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Equus (genus)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 18:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi there, I think I have sufficient experience with horses now to review this one... FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Horses only returned to the Americas with the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1493." Needs a source.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • End of first paragraph under ecology needs a source.
This is well known fact. LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as I know, any statement needs a source on Wikipedia, however obvious it may seem. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The term equine refers to any member of this genus, including horses." That is the common language definition that only refers to extant species, but technically, it also refers to everything within the equinae. Like how canine commonly refers to dogs, but actually refers to all of caninae.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of words linked twice in the lead.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Equus ferus ferus Tarpan (historically extinct)" What does "historically extinct" mean? A date would be better.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, there is quite some inconsistency in that taxon list, some places distribution info is mentioned, some have alternate names, some have scientific authority etc. Should be consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side comment: I've been in the background on this article because I am neither a taxonomist nor a palentologist. But I may pop in here a wee bit with a couple comments that Little Jerry or Funk Monk may want to factor in. A few for now:
  1. An earlier version of the article contained the alternative names for several subspecies, they got deleted (I think by an anon IP) and I think this article would be stronger if they were restored.
    See FunkMonk's last task above. LittleJerry (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Pzrewalski horse in the composite lead photo is mislabled as e. ferus when actually ALL horses (at least all extant ones are e. ferus ________ i.e. Equus ferus caballus, Equus ferus Pzrewalski and so on. The Tarpan is e. ferus ferus. This was a huge editing discussion when we took horse to GA and we had one of the taxonomy experts (sadly, now retired) review all this.
  3. I whined a little bit about this at article talk, but the very cool composite photo leading this article also has three different zebra photos but not a single one of a domestic horse. The Przewalski is NOT the wild ancestor of the modern domestic horse. Montanabw(talk) 07:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I originally labelled it the wild horse of which the Pzrewalski and domestic horse are both subspecies. The Pzrewalski photo represented the species. I can't represent every subspecies in the montage. LittleJerry (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed montage. LittleJerry (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're of course always welcome to chime in, Montana. FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now some of the common names are capitalised, should be consistent.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happier now. I only am at the evolution section where I clarified some stuff that FunkMonk may want to review, as I added some sources. I also added a bit on the digestion stuff, as I was the creator of the utterly fascinating article hindgut fermentation (lol). Hope it helped, but I won't be deeply wounded if something gets tossed. I'm not considering myself a reviewer here as I contributed to this article from time to time, only a second eye for both reviewer and lead editor. Montanabw(talk) 21:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The word comes from Latin equus, "horse"," The word is Equus (it doesn't "come from" it), so it would probably make more sense to write "The word Equus is the Latin word for "horse"."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is the only recognized extant genus in the family Equidae." The article seems incomplete without some mention of the various subgenera that the extant genera are placed in.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention three stages of equid evolution, maybe mention some exemplary genera in parenthesis?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "traditionally referred to as Hippidion, originally believed to be descended from Pliohippus, was shown to be a third species in the genus Equus" That is an over interpretation, the paper simply states the status of Hippidion is unresolved and needs further evaluation.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe better to remove the part about Hippidion entirely, doesn't add much,and I'm sure there are other similar cases that have been arbitrarily left out. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a bit odd that there is no list of fossil species as well. I know that would be a long list, but being a genus article, not a higher level with much more content, I think it would be appropriate.
It was there, but I figured it would be a problem since most species were red and uncited. Plus it gave the article a dry look. LittleJerry (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I don't like to see important information like that go, maybe you can include it, hidden in the taxobox, see for example what I did here to prevent a huge list: Paraceratherium FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Equines may be medium to large in size" This means little without some numbers. You could give the height of the smallest and largest species, for example.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As odd-toed ungulates, their slender legs support their weight on one digit" Supporting weight on one toe is what makes them unique within odd toed ungulates, this sentence makes it seem as if it is a trait for odd toed ungulates in general.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The other species tend to occupy more arid environments with more scattered vegetation." What other species? Zebras? Horse?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They regularly rub against trees, rocks and other objects and roll in around in dust." Why?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ecology and activates" What is meant? Activities?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some places you write "mountains zebras", other places "mountain zebras", should be consistent.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A picture of juveniles or mating would make more sense under Reproduction and parenting.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the stallion will attack predators that come too close." How?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evans Horse Breeding and Management p.56" What is this publication?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two subspecies, the quagga and the tarpan, became extinct in recent history." This would make more sense after the first couple of sentences in the paragraph, and does need a source, though it seems obvious.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus, it is debated if the tarpan is identical to the original wild ancestor or an independent subspecies that may have interbred at times with some caballus populations during the domestication process." Needs a source.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I have been called to swing by and help, though I notice that there have been extensive changes since I last popped by. So, right now, what's left? By the way, some material can probably find sources at horse (already a GA) and horse behavior. FWIW, my expertise is confined to the caballene subspecies and, to a lesser extent, domestic donkeys. I don't know didlly-squat about zebras, so you guys are on your own there. Montanabw(talk) 01:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please add in information on the conservation/management issues of feral horses in the conservation subsection? LittleJerry (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest? I won't have much time for wiki soon, so I'd rather give this done with soon. LittleJerry (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Funk Monk is OK with it as is, I'm not going to raise a stink either, I'm not particularly motivated about it. But if it were "my" article, I'd expand it out to about three paragraphs, or at least make the two there a bit more comprehensive as summaries, for example add a sentence or so on evolution, clarify the "medium or large" size thing now that we did so in the body text, add a touch on hybrids and maybe a few words on feral animals, and a bit more on the biology section (a touch from sections 3.3, 3.4, & 3.5). When I do a GA review, I usually like to see each topic in the TOC at least lightly touched upon in the lead unless the article is totally huge... Montanabw(talk) 05:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, the intro is supposed to be a summary of the entire article after all. Any suggestions for the article body? FunkMonk (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more sentences to make the lede more reflective of the body. LittleJerry (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"callaboids"?

[edit]

Think it should be "caballoids"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Human relations"

[edit]

This section states "The earliest archaeological evidence for the domestication of the horse comes from sites in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, dating to approximately 3500–4000 BC" and yet the cave-painting of a man riding a horse is dated "8th millennium BC". I have tagged it for self-contradiction. zzz (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll double-check the cave painting material, possibly a typo. Montanabw(talk) 02:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Out of 605 identifiable cave-paintings of animals at Lascaux (17,000 years old), 364 were of equines. Intriguingly. zzz (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Horses have fascinated humans through time, indeed. HIghly likely that someone tried riding horses long before the "official" date of domestication, Self-nomination for a Darwin award or the famous "hey Bubba, hold my beer and watch this" probably has existed from whenever we first figured out fire and the spear. We just can't prove it! Montanabw(talk) 19:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stenoid

[edit]

>Molecular evidence supports the division of Equus species into stenoids ...."

What does "stenoid" mean? There isn't any information here at Wikipedia about it. Goggle thinks it has something to do with either poker rankings or lumbar spinal stenoid. I think it probably has more to do with the latter than the former but maybe it means something else entirely. Could someone please substitute a different word for "stenoid" to make it easier for our readers to understand what is being described here? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it. Looks like some corrections are needed. Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 05:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Equus (genus). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equus ovodovi

[edit]

The cladogram features E. ovodovi, but this (extinct) species is missing from the section All species and subspecies. I'd add it if I knew where, but I don't see where it fits in, taxonomically.  --Lambiam 16:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Equus (genus). 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) 07:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

species list

[edit]

Montanabw, we appear to have a disagreement. I think the species list now looks aesthetically dry and ugly. I can add pictures of that align with the text unless you have an alternative. LittleJerry (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a chart with the photo clearly linked to each, as we did for leopard complex. I could live with that. Montanabw(talk) 02:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Equus (genus). 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) 06:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Equus (genus). 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) 21:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 March 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move after over 2 weeks and a relisting. Cúchullain t/c 18:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– The horse genus is obviously the WP:primary topic (all other uses are either derived from or references to the name of the horse), so there is no need for the Equus disambiguation page to usurp the title. That should instead be renamed Equus (disambiguation). FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is rather irrelevant, since the play is located at Equus (play), so this move will have no bearing on it. Or are you suggesting the play should usurp the title? FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Equus (play) receives twice as many page views is an indication that this article is not the primary topic of "Equus". Thus the genus page and disambiguation page should not be moved. Dekimasuよ! 02:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As stated below, page views is not the determining factor. FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Usage is one of two determining factors. I am quite familiar with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Dekimasuよ! 15:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to re-read WP:primary topic: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Views aren't really what matters in this regard. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC asks us to look at both views and significance. I'm saying that the genus fails the views test (you agree there, I hope), and also does not clearly pass the significance test when lined up against the other uses of "Equus". Thus, dab page is best. Dohn joe (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy to agree that Horse, Zebra, and Donkey each have more long-term significance than Equus (play). However, that is different from stating that the genus has much greater long-term significance than the play. Likewise Bear is an article on bears, but Ursus is a disambiguation page and the genus is at Ursus (genus); Mouse is an article on mice, but Mus is a disambiguation page and the genus is at Mus (genus). As a search term, "Equus" more frequently refers to other topics rather than the genus. The genus is significant in terms of taxonomy and evolution, but is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the search term. Dekimasuよ! 02:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yes, of course the play is very well-known, but there's still no way it competes in primacy with the genus after which it is named. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The current use of disambiguation is far superior to this primarytopic grab. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Long-term significance trumps recent usage for perennial topics like these. I'm not convinced that the play is comparable. feminist (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the clear primary topic in terms of significance. The play is only called Equus in reference to the genus. bd2412 T 14:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we want to make it harder for our readers to find the article they're looking for? We know a lot fewer "Equus"-searchers are looking for the genus based on current usage statistics. "Being named after" is not a primarytopic criterion - see Boston, etc. Dohn joe (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unambiguously fails the first criterion at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, since per Dekimasu's page views link, the play has consistently gotten more page views than the genus. This means its fails both of the subcriteria: much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined for likelihood of readers searching for the term. The second criterion is also not ironclad, even if probably support the genus. Equus is a very prominent play which won the Tony nearly a half-century ago and still has revivals today. A genus is also different from the individuals species in the genus, and is typically restricted to academic and scientific contexts (i.e. if the play was called "Horse" this analysis would be different). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I came here expecting to support but evidence provided above convinced me otherwise. The nomination purports to be based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but then cites "derived from" argument which is not based on policy. Most of the support votes are along the lines of "the genus is the clear primary topic" with no other evidence in support. While the genus has long-term significance, a move will inconvenience a large majority of readers. —  AjaxSmack  02:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The genus is the primary dictionary definition, but not clearly a primary topic for the encyclopedia. The disambiguation page should stay where it is. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per feminist. Here "long-term significance" means since Roman times. Nothing else on the dab page is comparable. If it is all about the play, we can put that in the hatnote for the convenience of readers. Srnec (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Long standing as in "world history". In fifty years, the play will hardly be remembered, but the horse will be Equus for as long as taxonomic names are used. FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^Precisely. I was referring to the subject, not the article. Lazz_R 13:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Phoenix is a parallel and well-established example: the mythological bird is the original; but the city in Arizona is also well-known; and there is no WP:PTOPIC.
It can sometimes be useful to turn an argument on its head. "Equus (play) gets 1.6 times as many pages views as Equus (genus). The play is therefore the PTOPIC." No it isn't.
Nom's argument that 'The horse genus is obviously the WP:primary topic' is a bald statement of opinion. I distrust any argument which attempts to reason back from the proposed conclusion to the premises.
Ill-chosen PTOPICs collect bad links-in which are unlikely to be found and fixed, and which degrade the encyclopedia. I check Tetrahedron from time to time, looking for links intended for Tetrahedron (journal). Everyone but everyone who knows of the journal will also know of the Platonic solid (which is fundamental to all organic chemistry); but in my experience, around 0.2% of the links to the PTOPIC have been intended for the journal. That's too many. Narky Blert (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wild horses

[edit]

"wild equine populations are limited to Africa and Asia." What about the wild horses in the United States? Spreetz (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're not wild, they're feral. The first half of the sentence you are quoting says "the domestic horse and donkey (along with their feral descendants) exist worldwide..." so I don't think we need to amend that. Anaxial (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Equus_(genus)&oldid=1248037922"