Talk:Bit mouthpiece

History merge request

To the ADMINs: These templates are confusing, here's my intent:

Don't delete this page. Only delete the one I messed up trying to move this article, and merge that article's hisory here. Clear as mud?

Keep bit mouthpiece and keep the new article Bit (horse). Delete Bit (horse and merge its history back into this bit mouthpiece article, which is where it came from in the first place before I screwed things up by trying to move an article that didn't need to be moved. Montanabw 08:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Snoutwood 09:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement discussion

There is no question that this article would benefit from more footnotes and some updates based on research. To that end, this diff shows an attempt that was made. The problem was a combination of what reads like copy-pasting, primary source research and some writing that is just too technical for this overview article. Also, we have articles such as bit ring and bit shank where some of this information would fit better. The issue of the severity of flat-link bits is probably one that could be looked at in the kimberwick article as well as the bit ring article. I'm also not totally opposed to looking at all the bit articles with an eye to more sourcing. But we have to write better articles, not replace so-so content with more so-so content. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]