Talk:Knabstrupper

June 2006

I have cleaned up and expanded the Knabstrup page. I have also tried to add an image. But I am not sure if I have done so correctly. MW

Is the information on the Kabardian horse page the same as the info on here? I think someone got their breeds mixed up, and put the wrong name with the wrong breed, unless the Knabstrup is also known as the Kabardian. Just curious... Morgana 12:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Have deleted the sentence, "It has warmblood conformation" from the beginning of the article. Knabstrups were crossed with warmbloods to create a sport horse type, yes, but there also exists the original baroque type as well as pony types and those do not have warmblood conformation. Roan Art (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Most appear to have this build, so if there are others, it is better to add the other body types than to delete useful information. Montanabw^(talk) 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio

I placed 2 copyvio notices with markers here, in an attempt to blank out text apparently lifted directly from here. Must have done something wrong, as the url doesn't show and the article is blanked right to the end. Sorry about that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've put what little I was able to salvage from the article in the temporary location requested, Talk:Knabstrup/Temp, which seems to be a talk page. Unfortunately, that little seems to be principally a collection of errors (it is connected to the Appaloosa, warmblood is not a conformation, breed standard and registration is carefully administered in Denmark, the horse marketed in the USA as "Knabstrupper" is apparently a Knabstrupper/Appaloosa cross, etc.). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Whenever the copyvios hit in these old, neglected articles, a quick jaunt over to Google books and the horse breeds encyclopedias can save the day. Dana boomer often can do a very good and fast job of rewriting and cleanup without the hassle of the copyvio tag process if you ask her and she has the time. But if you want to fiddle with this article and fix it up, go for it. My RL is swamping me and I can't believe how much piles up on WP when I've neglected my watchlist for three days! =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 16:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, was going to do that. Or rather, had done that, but reverted and put copyvio instead. Editing would have removed the copied stuff from the article, but not from the history. I'll try to write something from the official Danish site. Don't really know why anyone here is worried about copyright if Google can scan and publish 15000000 books and not get prosecuted; they must be a little less sure of their ground in Europe, though, as we don't get access to many of them here (including those horse encyclopedias).
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I don't think it's that big of a deal to have an admin remove previous history, just getting it fixed now is what matters most. Let those who fuss do the fussing, let those who fix do the fixing! Montanabw^(talk) 23:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Follow up: After the copyvio fix, I did some minor copyediting of what was still there, cleaned up the refs a bit and threw in that info we added to the Appaloosa article. I don't really have the interest to do a lot of work on this article, so if anyone else wants to improve it further, be my guest. I'll just continue the minor "wikifairy" stuff of cleanup and copyediting, etc. Montanabw^(talk) 16:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Danish Knabstrupper association website

Seems the website(s) for Knabstrupperforeningen for Danmark [Knabstrupper Association of Denmark] has been migrating over time.

• knabstrupperforeningen.dk] (2000-2013) Has some English pages. Still active online as an 'archived' website.
• knab.dk (2013-2019) Has an English sub-site. It is still active online as an 'archived' website.
• knabstrupper.dk (2021-current) No English found.

▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Distribution

the distribution has a lot more locations including The US, Canada, Australia, the UK, and many others that I dont recall. There is a concentrated effort by breeders worldwide to bring this magnificent horse back from its endangered status. 2600:1012:B15A:7E3F:6575:438E:C4D3:D8F6 (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Reference format

So, Grorp has now twice changed the format of the references I added to this page with this edit in 2022 to use a template. Our guidance on such changes is crystal-clear: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change". That guidance is there to prevent pointless back-and-forth over reference formats.

Citations were first added to this page with revision 311782973 on 4 September 2009 (now hidden from general view because of copyright violation); the same citations are visible in revision Diff/425681521‎ dated 24 April 2011. They do not use a cite template. After some consideration I have broken a personal rule and reverted the changes for a second time – citing the wrong guideline, of course, WP:RETAIN rather than WP:CITEVAR. Is there in fact any valid reason for the reference format to be changed? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there was a reason to change the format, and those changes were made in good faith. If I changed a citation from non-template to WP:CS1 template, it is because I verified the content, and some information was missing from the citation, or wrong, or needed changing, and my default method is to use the CS1 method. Any citation I changed from a non-template full citation like:

<ref>Authors here [URL title] other stuff here {{ISBN|1234567890}}</ref>

to a template cite book citation style like

<ref>{{Cite book |author= |title= |url= |isbn=1234567890 |ol=321654f}}</ref>

was done because I was verifying content and found an actual online source, or had the paper book in my hand.

Note: I didn't even know there was a distinction between non-template and template citations until I read a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources to try to understand CITEVAR better. I have edited for over two years and 7,000 edits and don't recall ever hearing of CITEVAR until a few weeks ago, except maybe in the scope of being told not to switch between short citations and full ones when one style is used predominantly (especially to the exclusion of the other).

Often, such non-template citations have links to google books which often don't work at all, or work poorly. See WP:Google Books and Metadata Errors. If I find a book available at Open Library, I put that link there (|ol=123456f) because those books are available in full to any reader who registers for a free account. If there's an author-link available, I add that. To the reader, non-template and template full citations look very similar to each other (unlike the difference between short and full citations, which is very obviously different).

As for which historical version to look at, one need not go any further back than the version that was there when I made my first edit to the article: [1] because no one is going to go back into the page history to see which format citations were before then. CITEVAR isn't about who got their foot in the citation format door before everyone else, it's about not petty-warring over citation formats. It specifically allows for changes in the format/style; the very first example is improving existing citations by adding missing information. As you can see, that version of Knabstrupper had mixed styles: some non-template, some template, and the non-templates weren't even consistently formatted, while the templated ones always display the same way. The work I did included removing several unreliable sources that existed then, and updating several others (but not all of them). But each one I updated was because I verified the content and usually something was lacking in the citation. It is easier to use the cite book template because it is (a) well understood, (b) forces you to use all the main parameters, (c) works easiest with those automated tools for checking for archived pages, and (d) displays in a consistent format to all the other template-formatted citations.

As to page numbers: Page numbers in superscript take up a lot of horizontal reading space. Most of these horse breed articles use book sources which have a single section (a half page, page or two pages) covering the breed, and the rest of the book is unused. There is no reason the page numbers cannot be placed in the citation itself (for use in verifying) while saving the reader's eyeballs from having to read past something like this: ^{[5]: 480 [7]: 113 [8]: 176} (actual example from Knabstrupper), instead of the simpler ^[5][7][8] with the page numbers in the footnote area. Page numbers in superscript are most useful when many different pages in a single book are being cited, which is not what we have here in this article.

As for the changes to the "edwards" citation, I have that paper book currently and since that was the version I used to verify the text, and there was no online version available, then that paper book is the version I changed the citation to which explains the change in ISBN and date, even though the page number for "Knabstrupper" stayed the same. Without access to the other ISBN book, I could not verify the content from that source. I used what I had available to me. Also, not all of the calls of that source had a page number, so I felt I had to verify it and add page numbers (they turned out to be the same).

I hope I have fully answered your question of Is there in fact any valid reason for the reference format to be changed?

My updates didn't lose any information from your non-template citations, however your reversion of my updates did lose information. The whole point is to provide citations for the purpose of verification. If one cannot verify with one of your citations but can with mine (especially after I did the work to find an available source), which citation better supports the goals of the Wikipedia project? Arguing over styles seems pointless. I didn't make the changes to irritate you; I didn't even know this was a "thing".   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: ^^^^^   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Since you've made around 200 edits since I answered, and well over 100 since I tagged you, I'm going to assume that you read my response, that it answered your question, solved whatever concerns you had about my edits, and you didn't post a response because there was nothing further to say.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No, Grorp, that's not so. I'm just waiting for some other input here, some indication that a consensus for your proposals might develop. There's been none so far ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m just weighing in with my two bits. JLAN, we’ve worked together for a very long time, but I must gently note your citation style is a bit quirky and would never pass FAC anywhere. It’s not a hill I want to die on for “your” articles where you edit actively, but I do wish you wouldn’t go through existing articles and change the reference style. I especially wish you wouldn’t replace everything with various breed encyclopedia references. Certainly they can supplement, and sometimes are the only source, but they are a tertiary source, and, as such may provide some necessary neutrality to contradict the often commercial puffery of some breed websites, but they are often not particularly authoritative, and may contain numerous errors. I don’t agree with Grorp on some issues, but I think Grorp is right on this one. We need to have through citations, and I like the use of the template so the format properly. Montanabw^(talk) 19:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, no, sorry, Montanabw, but not so:

1. FA criteria §2c is absolutely clear: "consistent citations: ... consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes ... Citation templates are not required.

2. In the general course of things I make a point of not changing the reference style in a page, though references I add are usually list-defined and not templated – 'ordinary' and list-defined refs integrate seamlessly, as do templated and hand-written, so this should not create any problem. In some cases I have indeed fundamentally changed the referencing system in a page, but only after posting on the article talk-page and waiting to see if there's any objection – see, e.g., here (done) or here (not done – forgot).

3. If you're talking about Mason, sixth edition, please see my reply here to Grorp on the same subject – it's published by a major academic publishing house and written by world-level experts (I think you know or have met one of them, Sponenberg?). I quite often include Elise Rousseau and Elwyn Hartley Edwards among refs that I add, but rarely rely on them for anything but the most banal detail; Edwards was an authority as you know, particularly on Indian horses, on Rousseau I have no opinion. And yes, all those books rehash material from earlier works in the same genre, going back at least to M. Horace Hayes if not earlier. At least we're no longer citing Cowboy Frank and theequinest in one article after another ...

The cite templates have two major disadvantages: they are impenetrably unreadable, especially if embedded in-text; and they attract a constant stream of pointless edits – someone makes a minor change in the template code, and bots and gnomes go round and make the same change to 4.7 million instances of it. I have over 50000 pages on my watchlist and do not appreciate that sort of clutter. Oh, and this guidance applies here as elsewhere. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

JLAN, I find it ironic that you mention "impenetrably unreadable" when none of the citations in this article are embedded in paragraphs (instead put at end under reflist|refs=), and that I earlier suggested an easier-to-read coding format (and offered to do the work) when I mentioned my vision issues and you dismissed me in favor of keeping the even worse "impenetrably unreadable" table formatting. See Talk:List of North American horse breeds § Format suggestion. "My way, or the highway" is all I hear from you at this point.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)