Talk:Poitevin horse

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.poitevin.org/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 06:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Review

Hello, I note some possible problems with review :

• "Isabelle" in french is not "isabelline" : the classification of horse coats colors is rudimentary and by "isabelle" we can mean the bay with dun gene or the bay with cream gene... There's no Poitevin Cremello so I suppose this is the dun gene.
• primes = prims, not premiums ;)

Nothing else for the moment --Tsaag Valren (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the coat color description, so it should be correct now. What is "prims"? Thanks for the check - it's much appreciated! Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

something like bounty, bonus, gift...? --Tsaag Valren (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I've taken care of this. Thanks so much! Anything else? Dana boomer (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps ! We have also a problem with official coat color "nomenclature" (don't know the english for nomenclature), which is required to all breeders and owners, it's not like in the U.S., here you have no national structure who oversees the entire equine industry. So, official coat color "nomenclature" is wrong and use the name "noir pangaré" (black pangaré), but we know that seal brown (seal brown = black pangaré) is not result of black coat color with pangaré gene. We have a name that is official and erroneous and are forced to use it. Beurk. Perhaps you should precise the problem of horse coat color name in the article to clarify it ? With a "note" ? Nothing else, good job ! (When I was a little girl i was fascinate by the mustangs, so if you work this article one day just say to me) ;) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

So are you saying that they're actually seal brown, but they're called black pangare? If I'm reading that right, I can definitely change it in the article text. Dana boomer (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes ! Official name = Noir pangaré in french (black pangaré), but genetically it's the seal brown coat color ;) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I've addressed this. I've added it into the text itself, rather than as a note, because I think it's quite relevant to the discussion of color and registration. The Mustang article definitely needs work, hopefully sooner rather than later, so I'll let you know if and when we start on that! Dana boomer (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Poitevin horse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) 07:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dana, no real problems, just some nitpicks

• Trait mulassier — of the four possible combinations of caps and lc, this seems the least plausible
• this has not been proven by — I'd say "proved", is proven OK in AE?

• "Proved" sounds extremely odd to my ear - must be a AE/BE thing. To avoid this, I've changed it to "verified" :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• clergy members — clergy?
• The head is long and strong,[9] with a convex profile;[5] the ears thick and long. — missing word?
• Mesolithic — could indicate what time range this covers
• through the beginning of World War I — should that be "up to" or is there something missing?
• ateliers (workshops) — does this mean they were indoors?

• Not as far as I know - my impression was that they were concentrated breeding centers. However, I've asked the French editor that I've been collaborating with on these articles for further information. Dana boomer (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, see th fr fr:Mule poitevine article (don't exist in english) section "Les ateliers". There's a part inside and a part outside. There's few explanations in en in article Poitou donkey --Tsaag Valren (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, cool; thanks, Amelie. I'll probably take a look at the Poitevin mule article (there's another one I should probably translate!) and see if there's anything I can add here that will make this article more clear. Dana boomer (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• became more rare — rarer?
• By the early 1990s, population numbers fell to the lowest seen. — bit clunky
• They are used to pull hitches for tourists — what's a hitch?
• External links has no visible content, do you need the heading?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Jim! I should have a chance to address these later today/this evening. Dana boomer (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I've addressed everything above. I left a couple of replies, but for most of them I just fixed the issue. Please let me know if you have further comments. Dana boomer (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you are right about the AE/BE thing, good solution. I've only come across atelier in the context of indoor workshops, but my French is schoolboy standard, so I've no reason to doubt your interpretation. Bien, on y va Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for another great review, Jim! Dana boomer (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Copyright problem removed

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.equinekingdom.com/breeds/heavy_horses/poitevin.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Poitevin 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130407224054/http://www.chevalpoitevin.com/Page/ArticleViewer.aspx?Id=26 to http://www.chevalpoitevin.com/Page/ArticleViewer.aspx?Id=26
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130407222342/http://www.chevalpoitevin.com/Page/ArticleViewer.aspx?Id=13 to http://www.chevalpoitevin.com/Page/ArticleViewer.aspx?Id=13
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130407224029/http://www.chevalpoitevin.com/Page/ArticleViewer.aspx?Id=28 to http://www.chevalpoitevin.com/Page/ArticleViewer.aspx?Id=28
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509060516/http://www.poitevin.org/memoire/mulassier.pdf to http://www.poitevin.org/memoire/mulassier.pdf

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) 15:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

This article ...

... is apparently going to be on the front page of Wikipedia in a few weeks' time. It doesn't seem to be anywhere near ready for that. I'd be prepared to do some copy-editing, try to remove some of the translationese, the misunderstandings of the source text(s), and so on – unless of course anyone objects? (Note: I read French without difficulty) If I do that, I'll also restore the list-defined referencing which was removed without discussion with this edit in 2013 and replaced with the present mishmash, which is neither flesh nor fowl. Unless anyone asks me not to, I'll probably go ahead with this in a day or two. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll have to redo the blurb, but before I do that ... does anyone object to the re-written lead? Since the FAC nominator hasn't edited in a while, I'll ping the remaining FAC supporters: Montanabw, Jim, Giants2008, and GermanJoe. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, Dank. Just a heads-up that the TFA for this horse may be postponed to a later date. There is a date-linked FAC that I'll run on 7 July if it is promoted in time, in which case this will be postponed, although I'll run it in October if it's not used by another TFA coordinator before then, so neither the copyedit nor the blurb will be wasted either way. I don't have any problem with the lead, although I know nothing about horses Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers The style of LDR referencing you changed everything to is not standard for FAC, in fact, by putting page numbers in the text and not the footnotes, it actually makes a real mess of things. I have never taken an article to FAC in this condition and I do need to correct all of these to the citation templates. The height without conversion templates is also not standard for WPEQ FAC-quality articles. I know that per our WP:TRUCE I've not carped about this issue on "your" articles, but this is a TFA nom and thus a little different standard applies. Montanabw^(talk) 22:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Heads up: Jim intends to run this at TFA on October 7. I haven't checked the editing to the lead section yet ... is everyone on board? I'll have to rewrite the blurb that was done for July 7. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Unwatching here ... tweaks are welcome to the October 7 blurb. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Never bred for draught work?

"the Poitevin has never been bred for draft abilities" (Intro); This claim (due to appear soon on Wikipedia's Main Page) does not seem to be verified by the text.

I am by no means an equine enthusiast, but I assume "being bred" has two applications: the selective breeding that gives rise to the breed, and breeding from them. In terms of the former, it seems clear that the horse was deliberately bred in the 17th century for marsh drainage, and the role of the horse in such drainage was, I again assume, based on dragging implements. As to the latter, there seems to be a jump of about 100 years in the history of the breed, (1685 to late eighteenth century) before there was pressure to crossbreed from these.

An absolute, and especially a negative absolute, is very difficult to verify. Given the scarcity of the breed, it may well be justifiable to say that they are "not now", or "have not been for (insert appropriate time period)", but "never" does not seem (to a layman's eyes) valid.

Am I just imagining a false image of how horses assist in drainage work? Kevin McE (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Ealdgyth ... thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 11:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

it was introduced in June this year with this edit by @Justlettersandnumbers:. Beyond that... I'm not walking into this at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Done in the blurb ... I think, I hope. I just got rid of the offending phrase ... seems to hold together without it. That took us below 925, so I added the modern name of the region for Poitou. In this case, I'd rather not edit the article, but I don't object if anyone else does. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Ealdgyth. Yes, I did indeed add it to the lead several days before I added it to the body text with the reference which supports it (Bataille, page 176) – sorry about that! Kevin McE, selective breeding is choice of which animals to keep for breeding, in the hope that their good characteristics will be transmitted; this may be an intentional and conscious process, or not – hens that don't lay well end up in the soup-pot long before those that do. The horses that worked on marsh drainage were, according to the myth/history, imported from the Low Countries; they would presumably have been draught animals trained for the work. Some of them apparently later bred with local horses, and the resulting cross-breed (this horse) much later began to be used for mule production. There does not seem at any time to have been any breeding selection in that cross-bred population for draught abilities, and the sources seem pretty unanimous that they have essentially none. I think your image of marsh drainage work may be correct; I don't think anyone suggests that this horse participated in it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

How does the blurb look? - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This was just removed from the lead: "It may be used for driving, for riding or for equine therapy." Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, Dank, I removed it. These are absolutely marginal, trivial uses. Of course it's true that they can be used for those things, but so can any horse (and many other animals too); but these are not typical uses of this horse, which excels at one thing and one thing only – bearing mules. Apparently there's one being used for rubbish collection too – I hope we're not going to put that in the lead?

As for the blurb, I really don't mind too much, but it'd probably be better if it resembled the (current) lead a little more closely – including the omission of that short sentence. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

That was my first reaction too ... aren't those things true for most breeds? But the article says (with sources): "Today, Poitevins are used mainly for driving, both in competitions and for leisure use. They are used to pull carriages for tourists. Members of the breed can be ridden more comfortably than other draft breeds due to their slimmer build. They are also used extensively for equine therapy in France." Doesn't that support the sentence in the lead? Would it help if we explained a bit more, or removed some points and focused on others? - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Dank, I don't think more than a small proportion of the problems in this article can be fixed in the next few days. I'll try to catch some of the worst ones – unless of course anyone wants me not to, which is fine too. At the moment there's so much verbiage that the main point – that this horse was crucial to the production of a famous mule – gets lost in it. We're also completely missing any account of its only other really notable characteristic: its ugliness, poor conformation, poor temperament, weak eyesight, unsuitability for any kind of hard work and so on (wait, is that me or the horse I'm describing?).

As for "extensive" use in hippotherapy, the source for that is this. It says that the horse is ideal for that purpose, but makes no claim that it is so used at all, let alone extensively.

The sources for "mainly for driving" are this RS and this book for children. Both say it is "appreciated" for driving, the first says also for riding; neither says whether they're actually used in this way (though photos show that they are sometimes hitched to a wagon of some sort), and most definitely neither says this is the main use (which, temporarily they hope, is not mule production, but conservation of the breed, as the IFCE source makes clear). I'll edit it, I suppose – or should I just leave it? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks kindly for checking on that. I'll remove the sentence from the blurb for now, and ask for feedback at WP:ERRORS. - Dank (push to talk) 00:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Character count is okay now, 925. No response at WP:ERRORS. I think it's good to go. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

CITEVAR violation

See WP:CITEVAR. This article received its Featured Article status in 2013, at which time all citations were in CS1 template format (39 more or less). Starting in 2019, Justlettersandnumbers has violated WP:CITEVAR numerous times until no CS1 citations remain, demoting each one to a text-only non-template citation. I'm documenting this here so that someone (or me, later) can restore the CS1 citations, these are the edits I identified which altered the citations—and from which original CS1 parameters may be easily obtained: 1 citation, 1 citation, several citations, 2 or 3 citations, and 14 citations.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is actually worse than a CITEVAR issue, since it's not arbitrarily switching from one essentially equal citation style to another without establishing a consensus to do so (e.g. from WP:CS1 to WP:CS2, or within CS1 from the usual style to Vancouver-style name formatting). It is stripping a large amount of functionality from the citations: It's thwarting a guaranteed-consistent formatting for the reader, nuking the COinS metadata (identifying authors, titles, etc.) for downstream re-users of our content, and shortcircuiting the use of shortened footnotes when appropriate. The last point in detail: templates like {{sfnp}} and {{harvp}} rely on parameters generated by our standardized citation templates like {{cite journal}}; while this cite-identifying output can be "faked" with an additional template, virtually no one knows how to use it, and it's more work to implement it in pointless plain-text citations that just using the standardized citation templates in the first place. And it would also be a form of templating citations (just with much less functionality than usual), so whatever the alleged goal of template-less citations might be, it would be defeated anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)