Jump to content

Talk:Tennessee Walking Horse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Tennessee Walker)

Celebration controversy

[edit]

On the case of soring: one author obviously does not believe soring is a problem in the TWH industry, and writes in such a way that proposes the critics of the industry a misguided. I'll admit that I have never been to a TWH show, and I don't known first hand about the issues of soring. But it is a well-known fact that soring is still an issue (Horse Illustrated and Equus magazine did an article on the subject a few months ago, and I know of TWH enthusiasts who know for a fact that soring still goes on). To try to dampen this matter in the article is uncalled for. While I think the *vast* majority of TWH riders do not sore their horses, the problem is still big enough to be mentioned in this article without someone trying to dampen it down and make it sound as if the whole thing has been blown out of proportion. I can understand that the TWH industry is probably misunderstood, and has an undeserved bad reputation by other equestrians, but wikipedia is supposed to give an unbiased view, and soring should be mentioned. Perhaps a non-equestrian should do research and write that section. Eventer 28 February 2006

Is this a site about the overall Tennessee Walking Horse breed, or just the unbridled, biases opinions of one zealout who admits NEVER having attended a TWH show? I'm confused...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.243.58.184 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts. Um no, there have been multiple editors on this article if you check dates. Some of us know and appreciate Walkers and have been to shows, and even know there are shows where the horses are not sored. But the disgrace at the celebration was the disgrace at the celebraton, and the expose in Equus was well-documented. If the breed doesn't clean up its own act and continues to apologize or deny the behavior of its bad actors, well, those are the zealots blind to the facts. Montanabw(talk) 04:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The disgrace at the Celebration? The USDA VMOs are the disgrace! Turing horses down on the scar rule? It's outrageous! I raise TWH yearlings every year, and we have three right now with small scars on their front feet. They have never even been ridden, much less sored or worked with an action device! Instead, they simply cut themselves while in the pasture with their mothers, probably on a section of fence or by tripping while running. Because of these natural accidents, they may never be able to show. That is a loss of thousands of dollars of investments, and these colts have never even been handled before, much less "sored"! Explain the rationale behind denying their entrace into a horse show, please. Tell the simple country farmer in Belfast, Tennessee, that the colt he raised after saving to purchase the rights to breed to a decent stallion that his investment is useless, because the colt accidently cut his foot while in a pasture. How is the scar rule logical or even fair? I work with my hands, and I have scars on both of them. Am I abusing myself? The scar rule shut down the Celebration, and it is an absurd, totally unfair rule. I do not condone a sore horse in my industry. It is a disgrace and inhumane, and I, along with nearly every supporter of the performance horse, have worked tirelessly to eradicate the sore horse from my industry. We have made tremendous progress, and anyone that knows anything about horses or the Tennessee Walking Horse industry, and I mean a truly knowledgable horseperson, can attest that the industry is far cleaner now than it has ever been. That is why I cannot stand for people such as yourself, who obviously do not know about the state of the industry, to lambast us like we are some crazed animal abusers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.243.58.184 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any non-equestrian doing research on soring will find nothing that supports the practice, plenty of evidence that it occurs, and nothing other than industry apologists who contradict what happened at the celebration. However, they are free to look. I personally encourage this outraged anonymous IP to do some research and present a VERIFIABLE source that supports his or her views. As far as I am concerned, this rant is about the same as the cigarette industry claiming that tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer. And incidentally, I have owned horses all my life, (over 40 years) including a number of ranch-raised horses who lived inside barbed wire fences and surrounded by rattlesnakes, gopher holes, rocks and sagebrush. I have never have seen a young horse "naturally" injure or scar themselves in a manner that resembles soring scars. If this really happened, this IP may want to reconsider their pasture management practices and perhaps consider bringing in a dump truck to remove whatever is out there that creates such a hazard. Montanabw(talk) 17:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is partially that the inspectors consider ANY scar or mark on the horse's forelegs to be a "soring" scar. I learned from a man who owned numerous TWHs just what this rule meant. He had a gelding who'd cut his front leg as a colt. The scar was about halfway down the cannon bone and was jagged. Yet that counted as a soring scar and unless he had signed statement from a vet declaring it to be a pasture scar, he could be fined up to $10,000. White Arabian mare (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NYPD?

[edit]

I understand that the horses used by the NYPD Mounted Division are Tennesse Walkers, originally a gift to New York. If this is true it's worth noting. --Wetman 07:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The horses used by the Nashville Mounted Patrol are Tennessee Walkers as well. White Arabian mare (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soring edits

[edit]

Article has been rewritten since last Feb., put in material on soring. Still, the soring section is periodically blanked or blanked and apologist POV material inserted in its place. This violates wikipedia guidelines for POV and verifiability. Soring information here is primarily from Equus piece, flat-shod TWH sites and other reputable sources, listed at the bottom of the article.

There is also a non-horse admin person watching the page and periodically reverting blanking edits.

I suggest that anyone who wants to "damp down" the info on soring produce cited source material and not industry-promotional hearsay. Also have the courage to register and have a screen name so the issue can be discussed, not just hit the article and run. I note IP addresses from the same general location keep doing this.

When there is constructive material added that is not self-defensive POV pushing, it will stay.Montanabw 08:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update "sorely" needed.

[edit]

Somebody needs to update this article with the recent and relevant news from the Tennessee Walking Horse show world. The 2006 Shelbyville Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration declared no grand champion becasue USDA inspectors disqualified six out of nine horses in the championship class. I gathered from the National Public Radio broadcast about this story that the qualified entries who did pass the inspection all elected not to enter the ring for fear of harm when passing through the very unruly crowd that had amassed after the USDA announcements.

How does one add updated info to an article? --Soltera 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the footnotes and external links. I think I already put a link to the news article in a footnote. I know the earlier expose on soring done by Equus magazine is in the external links section. You are welcome to put in either an external link to a good news article (I think there is one, though) or a small and WELL WRITTEN edit on the topic if you wish. I will only say that wikipedia has to be at least somewhat NPOV on the issue. We don't have to give the pro-soring side (just like the articles on the Holocaust don't have to give the pro-Nazi view) but we have had a lot of trouble with apologists for soring going in and blanking the entire section or replacing it with pro-industry drivel, so if some of these things aren't put in neon lights, it is only because wikipedia is not a soapbox. I also wonder if we should create a whole separate article on soring where all the horror stories can be told...you can do something like that too, whatever you want! Read the help pages about creating an article! Montanabw 20:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the article, you must not have read the whole thing. It says: "At the 2006 Tennessee Walking Horse Celebration [3], the dispute between trainers and USDA inspectors came to a head. The inspectors disqualified 6 of 10 horses from showing on the night of Friday, August 25. The trainers denied soring and challenged the monitoring methods. The result was that the celebration classes were canceled that evening and the following morning, Saturday, August 26. At that point, the monitors and trainers reached a temporary agreement, allowing the celebration to continue Saturday evening. Canceled classes were rescheduled. However, a more permanent agreement on monitoring methods still needs to be negotiated, and trainers and inspectors continue to meet." Montanabw 20:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

update on Soring

[edit]

I was at the 2006 National Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration. The crowd was not unruly. The issue of scar is this: what is a scar and what is a callous. Some of these horses ARE sored. Most are not. The USDA has been calling callouses scars. That's where the problem lies. These animals are athletes. ALL athletes have callouses. The Regulations allow a 6 ounce action device to enhance the gait. The horses are trained with these action devices. They rub callouses on the horses feet. The trainers are working on methods to remedy the callous problem, such as spats. The horse wears spats on its front feet to keep the device off its skin. The industry is working hard to resolve the issue, and this years Celebration was a great success. Bethnoham 19:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not all "athelets" have callouses OR scars, especially on the pasterns. This has long been the excuse given by those TWH folks who deny that soring is a problem. However, objective, outside evidence says otherwise. ASB folks don't have this problem, and they too use action devices. ASB's are not under the auspices of the Horse Protection Act. Neither are Arabians or Morgans, which are also breeds where some trainers use action-enhancing devices. Oh please, do spare us the apologist propaganda. At least, where is there documented, verifiable information that contradicts these below? Montanabw(talk) 23:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and 2007 WAS a success. The USDA was there in force the entire time! Coincidence? I think not!

Oh, and here's my favorite:

"Dr. Behre also addressed the scar rule. He began by questioning why the pasterns of Tennessee Walking Horses show tissue changes that do not occur in other breeds and disciplines of horses. He showed slides of eventing horses, reining horses, cutting horses, dressage horses, and combined driving horses and explained that, in each of these disciplines, the horses are exposed to mud, dirt, sweat, and friction yet their pasterns show no tissue changes. He showed slides of American Saddlebreds and Hackney Ponies. He pointed out that both of these breeds use action devices, commonly on all four limbs, yet their pasterns also show no tissue changes. He related that he had gone to the American Saddlebred World Championship show and had walked the show grounds looking at horses in the stalls and being worked and saw only virgin pasterns He also discussed Tennessee Walking Horses not trained for the show ring - field trial walking horses, pack line walking horses, backyard walking horses. He explained that these horses also show no tissue changes on their pasterns so it’s obviously not a breed characteristic. Likewise, he discussed the back pasterns of show walking horses, which are free of tissue changes, stating that they were exposed to the same bedding, the same amount of feces and urine, the same amount of bathing, etc. He then stated that if the mud, dirt, sweat, and friction, the action devices, and breed characteristics were not the cause of the tissue changes seen on the pasterns of show Tennessee Walking Horses, in his opinion, the primary cause must be the application of chemicals."

So please, spare us all any more nonsense. Go complain to the holocaust denial crowd or the Flat Earth folks or something. Montanabw(talk) 23:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tails

[edit]

Anything on tail alterations? Arsdelicata (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some info on setting tails at Horse_grooming#Setting, and more detail in Saddle_seat#Tail-Setting. Probably this article would benefit from those links, though the issue isn't a huge deal now that tails aren't cut as much as they once were. The more serious issue in other breeds, for which there is not a lot of discussion, is the opposite problem: the issue of "nerving" tails to make them lie still and flat...mentioned briefly in the Western pleasure article. I think in the Paso world, the issue of "altered" tails is an issue also (at least I assume USEF bans it because it's an issue)? Montanabw(talk) 05:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Montanabw, I think the battle to have just natural tails in the PFHA was lost Forum talk on tail alteration news SAD. yes it's done to deaden the tails, they get points off for tail movements.

This and sorring will ruin the horses and the sports. Arsdelicata (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soring is at least banned under federal law, when it's enforced. Nerving tails is also becoming a problem in dressage as well as western pleasure. Doesn't ANYONE believe in actually TRAINING horses any more? (sigh) Saw an article in The Horse on a tail nerving gone horribly awry, half the horse's hindquarters necropsied. Horrifying. Montanabw(talk) 04:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soring article?

[edit]

Am wondering if there is so much in here on soring that it should be spun off into its own article. We would still leave a solid paragraph on it here, but with a link to the spinoff. Soring is not a significant problem with other breeds, though, so maybe that's an argument to keep it here. We also have the occasional POV warrior go through here and blank the section. I don't want to make a significant change without discussion, but I'm concerned that the issue dominates the overall article, which seems a bit of undue weight, but I also don't want to softpedal something that is of extreme concern. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 20:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Parking stuff here that might be incorporated into article:

Overall, these look really good. The book is probably a no-go, since it's self-published (Dog Ear Publishing is a self-publishing service). With all of the other sources out there, though (these, plus all of the ones in the external links section), I don't think we'll miss it. Dana boomer (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Poop! Where is the link to WP's guidelines on self-published sources? I can't seem to find it today... Montanabw(talk) 20:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPS. I haven't been able to find anything that would show that Miller is a recognized expert in the field - no books published by mainstream companies or articles in major journals/trade publications. I may have missed something though. Was there something specific that you wanted to use from that book? Dana boomer (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a cursory glance, it appeared to have some show ring history, possibly on development of the "big lick" stuff. But I can probably find it elsewhere. But I have found (from other breed research) that it is very tough to find muckraking and criticism in mainstream publications, most of the dirt is in blogs and self-published materials, probably due to worries about lawsuits. But I'll try to do RS stuff before resorting to this. Montanabw(talk) 20:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the muckraking for this breed at least may have started to go mainstream - check out, for example, the Chattanooga Times Free Press article that I used as a source. It's not extremely detailed, but has more criticism than you would find about any other breed in a fairly major newspaper. I think the difference might be that it's hard to get the public to care about an inherited disease (i.e. HYPP, etc), while actual abuse actual gets people interested/talking/writing letters to their congressman. Total OR on my part of course, but I think it might be easier to find good sources for the dirt on this breed than for others. Dana boomer (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. There may also be Congressional findings on the Horse Protection Act, it would have required hearings. However the Congressional web sites I'm finding don't seem to go back to the 70s. May have to dig elsewhere on paid databases for that. Montanabw(talk) 01:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA run

[edit]

The more I look at the detail on the styles of showing, the more I think it may be worth a spinoff or transfer to Saddle seat. It is clear that the show ring stuff is in a LOT of transition at the moment. TWHBEA isn't sanctioning ANY shows any more, there are two competing "performance" horse show sanctioning groups, the USEF no longer has a TWH division, and the USEF recognized affiliate for the breed is a flat-shod group. So there is NO obvious single source on show rules that I can find (hence the "flat shod/performance padded distinction seems to be in flux) It's a clusterfuck, to be quite blunt. And trying to find a rulebook for the flat shod shows is also a challenge because there are several of them as well. I'm digging for all it's worth, but this thing is like an anthill. Montanabw(talk) 23:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean where it says "The two basic categories of competition are called "performance" and "flat shod."" and the next two bullet points? If so, I wouldn't have a problem with removing/moving to another article the majority of this info. Maybe just leave a sentence along the lines of "TWHs are generally shown in two divisions: flat shod, with minimal shoeing, and performance, with shoes built up with multiple layers of pads, which serve to accentuate/exaggerate the gaits". This can all be sourced to the current ref after the second bullet point (#22, I think). And we can leave it at that, with the description in the first paragraph of the different organizations that have popped up. Probably best to leave things fairly vague as no-one seems to know what is going on. Dana boomer (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the built-up padded horses are no longer allowed to be shown in any USEF-sanctioned event, they're banned and the USEF affiliate for showing TWH is a flat-shod group. Let me mull this over and think about it. We would be wimping out to avoid the controversy, but I want to get the current state of matters correct. Montanabw(talk) 21:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The latest round of edits look really good - I think it explains the controversy/differentiation between flat-shod/performance quite well. Some of the organization is a little off (discussion of compliance with the HPA1970 before stating what it is, discussion of NWHA performance ban before explaining who they are), but this is fairly easily rectified, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to "Futz" with it. I'm also babysitting a lady who is making some serious improvements to the Gypsy Vanner article and RL is biting me in the butt, so my work here may be in dribs and drabs, I will not be butt-hurt if you go through there like a white tornado. I now have more sources than I know what to do with, and will plop a few here:

Montanabw(talk) 01:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some very cool sources! Some of them will probably be good for the HPA1970 article, too (which I still have on my to-do list...). I'll probably get a chance to go through and do some editing later today. Off topic: On the Gypsy Vanner article, it looks like she's doing good work. If she wants to take it to GAN there are some unreliable sources, though...let me know if you'd (either of you) like me take a read-through of the article for another set of eyes. Otherwise, it's a great improvement to an article that's needed it for a while. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that my eyes are numb on the GV article so a new set of eyes is good. However, we all know we have unreliable sources in there, but the problem is that it is very tough to find sources that will pass WP:RS because so much is so new and a lot of it was a one-man show until people started rebelling. My guess is what is in there IS accurate, just not going to pass the GA gods. However, if in your digging you can verify stuff with an RS, go for it. But the breed encyclopedias are not particularly good on the topic. And the breed politics are quite complex.  ;-P Montanabw(talk) 23:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Horse Protection Act of 1970 has had its initial expansion, and is now nominated at DYK. I plan to continue working on it, and then sending it to GAN - there's plenty of material. I'm thinking that it wouldn't be hard to do a whole series of articles revolving around this topic - TWH, HPA, then Racking horse, Spotted Saddle horse and maybe even the Soring article itself. There's enough material on everything to get them all at least to GA, and possibly to FAC on several. Dana boomer (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea. Will try to help as I can! Montanabw(talk) 19:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-GA work

[edit]

I've taken another run through the article and expanded the lead to include the showing/soring stuff. Here are my thoughts for now:

  • Do you have a source for the "day jackets" thing in the Turnout section? I took a quick look around and couldn't find anything in my source material...
  • Should we trim the HPA section, now that the article for that is in good shape? I'm thinking particularly a condensation of the second paragraph, as the details of who does the checks seems like more detail than we really need for a breed article.
  • Is there anything major that you were still planning on adding before a GA run?

I'm going to take a run through the external links to add anything interesting to the article and trim those that we already use as sources. Other than the above, I think we're getting fairly close to GAN - the article looks so much better than when we started! Dana boomer (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can look at what we moved to the soring article and the HPA article and chop the duplicative material here. Maybe move some of the material on inspections to those articles too, but if it's sourced, don't dump it. I'm not sure there really are written attire rules, but you can tell by the photos that almost everyone is in a day coat (contrasting color. I'll look though. I'm swamped this week IRL so not sure how much use I'll be for a bit, but will monitor. Montanabw(talk) 21:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I hid the day jackets info for now - it's not really important, but can be put back in if we find a source. I also did a trim/copyedit of the showing article, removing tangential information that was already in the HPA article. I then re-expanded the section with some new info on the Auburn study and another minor association that focuses on heritage TWHs used for trail/pleasure. I think it's looking pretty good - thoughts? It's nice to have another fairly major US breed in good shape - we're getting there! Now we just have the Quarter horse article, and the Paint article, and the Standardbred article, and, oh, whatever...at least we're making progress :) Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Been kind of swamped in RL lately, but will keep an eye on proceedings. If I see a need for a tweak, I'll tweak. Can we get Ealdgyth on board for the QH article? She's got TONS of the books and the best knowledge of history of any of us there...we'll need her. Montanabw(talk) 19:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've nominated for GA - we'll see what happens :) We would definitely need Ealdgyth's help on QH - but know she's been busy on some major history articles (whoot! they look awesome!). Maybe later this year? In the meantime, I might take on Standardbred next, or just putz along on some of the smaller breed articles. Dana boomer (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Summer is here and with it the summer art festival season. I'll be busy a lot. I've done some work on the QH article and the history section already .. .it's not that bad of shape, or shouldn't be. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still quite a few fact tags, and the history section seems...short...for a breed of this importance. It's definitely in better shape with the work you've done, though. Anyway, I agree that summer is not the time to begin work on an article of that size/importance - way too busy. Maybe next fall/winter or something. Dana boomer (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can nibble on it, add sources, etc., it's probably a multi-month project, given the potential scope. Montanabw(talk) 20:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parking stuff

[edit]

News on the soring prosecution. Probably too WP:RECENT for this article, but worth monitoring, possibly to add to soring. Montanabw(talk) 19:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PumpkinSky (talk · contribs) 19:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a This: "single curb bit with a bit shank under 9-1/2 inches" doesn't use a convert template but the other measurements do.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
  5. It is stable.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a This image: File:Hambletonian10.jpg, needs a parameter for its PD-Art tag
    images okay now.
  7. Overall:
    1) I don't know about other screens, but on mine the Footnotes section header is kicked almost halfway across the screen because of the grooming photo. 1) some of the PDF refs have |format=PDF and some don't. PumpkinSky talk 20:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass/Fail:

Video

[edit]

I found this pretty neat video on YouTube:

It shows all the different divisions; halter, western, park, performance, pony, harness, etc. and is fairly clear, professional and well explained (no "my kid bouncing around at Pony Club"!). It's my idea that it could go in external links as a way to further explain the show rules and classes. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 16:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that as an EL, it would be fine to add. Montanabw(talk) 07:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18 13 dead links, "pressure soring", and portals

[edit]

Hi y'all. This article has 18 13 dead links. I was able to archive most of them, but before saving my efforts I had my first ever complete crash of Firefox and all my work was nuked. I will re-archive them later.

Also, the term "pressure soring" was scare quoted in the X-ray image caption, but did not exist elsewhere in the article so I removed it for now. A horsey person should probably attend to that issue. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll restore the caption, we DID have it in there... wonder what happened... Montanabw(talk) 00:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Montanabw. There turned out to only be 13 dead URLs and I was able to find archived versions of 9 of them and I tagged 4 of them as dead‍—‌until we can find archived versions of those 4.
"Pressure soring" as a term or in scare quotes does not appear anywhere in the article.
Portals are helpful to readers of articles. That is what portals are for. I think you're mixed up with WikiProjects and with categories. Adding a page to a portal will sometimes add it to the WikiProject and/or a category as well. For the convenience of our readers I am going to restore the portal I added and add one more. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZERO dead links, ALL citations archived, Other cleanup

[edit]

Hi. I'm a nerdy OCD editor who loves the nitty gritty of citation formatting, etc.

If you always add [CLARIFICATION: and populate] |archive-url=, |archive-date=, and |dead-url= when you add a citation, dead links will never be a future problem. Just be sure to also set the |dead-url= value to no so that the link directs to the live page instead of needlessly directing to the archive. If there isn't an archived version of the site that's close in date to the day you're adding the citation, by all means add an archive of the page as it appears on the day and use that link.

I found alternate sources for some links that were truly dead and added page numbers using the {{rp}} template. Use of this template avoids multiple references to the same source solely for the sake of citing a specific page number to support the article text.

There was also a news article cross-posted from a more reliable source (the Lexington-Herald at kentucky.com) to stopsoring.com, which seems a less reliable site that might also fail neutral point of view, even though the article itself doesn't. Better safe with a standard source.

Some really picky things: I like spaces before the pipes (|) in all citation templates. It makes them easier to read and to navigate via keyboard. Some people prefer spaces after the pipes, but no spaces is an editing nightmare as far as I'm concerned.

On the opposite end, there's no need for a space before the close of a reference name. That was a misconception that is ages old and it just isn't necessary. <ref name=RefName/> works just as well as <ref name=RefName /> and the byte savings over millions of articles isn't negligible.

Someone with more knowledge needs to check/edit the information I added about the lawsuit over the registry, please.

Hope this was helpful!

—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 18:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, D'Ranged 1. I checked over the stuff about the lawsuit and it looks fine. Maybe Montanabw, who I think is a lawyer, can check it over too. She undoubtedly understands legalese a lot better than I do. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 22:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, D'Ranged 1, I'll peek at all of the above. I'm not quite sure how to add those parameters when there is nothing to put into them...? (Also, they aren't in the citation templates accessed via the edit window, but they should be!) But one other problem we have is a bot of some sort (or just an editor with automation tools) goes through and removes all empty parameters. For those of us who heavily use the templates and also reFill, we don't adjust the parameters much, so I certainly do recommend working with the people who do those programs to fix the concerns you raise here. Montanabw(talk) 03:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, the whole point of adding the parameters is to make sure there is something in them. I'm not advocating adding them to citations and leaving them blank. I'm advocating for there always being an archive of every online source used in Wikipedia. There are exceptions, some publications don't allow the Internet Archive or other archiving services to capture their pages (I think The Washington Post is one), but for most online sources, it's a simple matter to add the page(s) being cited to one or more of the archive services at the same time the editor adds the citation to the Wikipedia article. As for not being in the citation templates, I'm using customized tools for citations, so don't easily know what you're using. One of the tools, however, does include the extra fields, but you must click on the "Show/hide extra fields" button. I tried a few years ago to get the toolmakers to be more diligent in providing easy access to the archive-related parameters with little success. Part of the problem is that most of the tools have been created by users and they're not obligated to respond to requests for improvements. Most do, but it can be a slow journey!
Happy editing!
—D'Ranged 1 | VTalk :  04:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been here 10 years and template syntax still baffles me; I just copy and paste from the master file or another article. Not all parameters can always be filled in... and if they aren't in the master, I hesitate to use them because I inevitably screw them up, but I sure am glad that you are here, so perhaps I can call on you to help! Montanabw(talk) 00:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, if you're clicking "Cite" on the editing toolbar and then using the drop-down Templates list, try clicking the "Show/hide extra fields" button. Sadly, even that doesn't provide the |dead-url= parameter, but the other archive parameters are there. You could also go to the Template:Cite book, Template:Cite web, or Template:Cite journal pages and copy and paste the full horizontal parameter set, then delete the ones you don't use.
That said, I'm always happy to attempt to answer questions. None of us were born knowing this stuff; we all had to learn it somewhere. What I know, I'll share. What I don't know, I'll attempt to find out.
Cheers!—D'Ranged 1 | VTalk :  01:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do use the "show extra fields" but absent going in and listing every single thing with Wayback, the template won't insert that parameter. (and it takes even longer to delete all the unused ones...I don't see a way to insert the full set absent putting something in every box... to copy/paste the ENTIRE set of some of those templates is... questionable. I guess my tendency is to wait for the linkrot and fix it as needed, though I see the advantage of your idea...except for the hours of manually creating archive links... (unless some way to automate?) I'm a content editor, I use the syntax because I must, but it is not my specialty. Montanabw(talk) 03:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are scripts available that add a bookmark to your browser's bookmarks bar that will automatically search for an archive of the page you are viewing. If an archive isn't found, the option to archive the page as you are viewing it is given. The problem with waiting for linkrot to happen is that some pages are never archived unless someone does it manually—the Internet Archive can't be expected to scan the entire web and archive every page. They do a great job of catching most of the major sites, but regional or local newspapers often don't get archived unless someone requests it. With the use of the bookmarklet (available at WP:WBM#JavaScript bookmarklet), it takes a couple of minutes at most to create or retrieve an archive of the page. We're basically talking about three additional parameters in the citation: |archive-url=, |archive-date=, and |dead-url=. Not much to ask, given that if not done, some citations become lost forever.

That's about as automated as it gets, unfortunately—to the best of my knowledge, at least. Unless and until more editors begin screaming for proactive archiving, I doubt good tools will be widely available. From WP:ROT#Automated tools: "There have been bots that proactively and automatically archive external URLs used in Wikipedia articles. None are currently working." There are some bots that will check links to see if they're still live, but that doesn't cover Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Pre-emptive archiving and often by the time the link is identified as dead, it's never been archived. (I ran into a few of those with this article, actually.)

As a reminder, my opening sentences for this section was Hi. I'm a nerdy OCD editor who loves the nitty gritty of citation formatting, etc. I'll continue obsessing about dead links in addition to making good edits to articles. You do you!

—D'Ranged 1 | VTalk :  03:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me that even if an editor doesn't want to take the time to add the information to the citation template, if they install the bookmarklets on their browser's bookmarks bar and click the "Wayback Machine Save" bookmarklet for every page they're citing, at least if and when the link goes dead there will be an archived version available for some bot to add.
—D'Ranged 1 | VTalk :  03:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I looked. I've never done programming in my life! It's all total gibberish to me (javascript is Greek to me) -- so you definitely add me to the "... editors [who] begin screaming for proactive archiving", though. I can definitely see the benefits! Montanabw(talk) 02:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tennessee Walking 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 18:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Country of Origin

[edit]
Country of origin 	     Tennessee, USA

Since Tennessee isn't a "country," this might be revised to something like: 

Country of origin 	     USA (Specific origin in the State of Tennessee)

☺Dick Kimball (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

Cannot see how, or why, the Infobox photo is repeated. Davidships (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm interesting problem. I looked at some old versions of the article and the repeat photo appears to exist to at least Jan 2016. I cannot believe it has actually existed since the beginning of this year, so I suggest this is a recent problem, but I have no idea what the problem might be. The Help desk might be the best place to go. DrChrissy (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just copied and pasted the infobox to my sandbox and the repeated image disappears! DrChrissy (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just copied and pasted the infobox material back into the article and deleted the former (identical!) version and this has got rid of the repeated image. I have no idea how this happened, but the problem appears to have been solved - though certainly not explained. DrChrissy (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone had messed up {{Infobox horse breed}}. I've reverted to the previous version. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Does that mean all horse articles using the template were similarly affected? I should have thought to check that. DrChrissy (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

These sources were made part of a "Further reading" list. For now, let's park them here while we determine if they are better used as sources in the article or if a furthe reading list is appropriate for this article. Also, to add back in, we should format them properly with the {{cite book}} template. Montanabw(talk) 07:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • B. Womack, The Echo of Hoofbeats: A History of the Tennessee Walking Horse, Dabora, 1984.
  • B. Green, Biography of the the Tennessee Walking Horse, Literary Licensing, LLC, 2011.
  • J. Webb, The Care and Training of the Tennessee Walking Horse, Joe Webb's Stables, 1978.
  • M. Gomez, R. Hood, Tennessee Walking Horse: An American Tradition, Grandin Hood, 2011.
I wish I had the first two! And I wrote an article on Joe Webb (horse trainer). My thinking would be to add those 3 back as appropriate for a further reading list; I've never heard of the 4th one. It might be good, but the Womack book is one of the best you can get, so... White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look them up on Worldcat or something to get full bibliographic info and use {{cite book}} to format them nicely. If you vouch for the first three, that is great, though Webb's might be a self-pub, so we'd need some other source to say "it's self-pub but it's fantastic!" Montanabw(talk) 05:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I pulled off Worldcat, looks like they all need ISBN #'s though:

I'll look into Webb's later. I don't really think it was selfpub because I remember mentioning it in his article...might have the ISBN listed there. As for the Womack book, I think that's the one with no ISBN. I remember reading a review where the reviewer said basically, "this is a really comprehensive book, but it's hard to get"; I think he had to buy it through an ad in the Voice or something. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that they all popped up on Worldcat, and with multiple libraries, that pretty much puts them into OK territory for me. Like I say, use the Worldcat links (or maybe Abebooks or another used bookseller may have ISBN and more info) and do a full bibliographic citation, and I'll be happy. Montanabw(talk) 08:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pads update

[edit]

According to the Shelbyville Times-Gazette, Obama signed that amendment or whatever to the HPA that will phase out pads by 2018. However, I don't think we should put that here yet because the industry is going to try to get Trump to repeal it...we're not a news site and I hadn't even heard that it passed till I was looking at something else. (Thanks, TV media. Spend time talking about what's trendy on Facebook when they're passing legislation that could affect our real offline lives.) I'll try to keep on top of developments and update when the final result seems clearer. White Arabian Filly Neigh 19:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably mention that I have just added content relevant to this in the article Soring. You are totally correct in stating that we are not a news site (although many, many articles seem to dismiss this), but similarly, we are not a crystal ball and can not predict the outcome of any appeal, if one is made. I hope this helps. All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're helping! My thinking about putting breaking news into articles; it seems doable on the biggest, high-traffic articles like Donald Trump where there are lots of editors and lots of watchers, but here on the horse articles we have fewer readers and only a few serious editors. So on these kinds of articles I don't like putting in details that are subject to change next week or tomorrow. I just posted here to let any watchers know that we editors are aware of the situation. ☺ White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It can be a tricky decision. Some articles such as Celebrity Big Brother here in the UK get updated and changed within seconds of the TV programme being aired. I got caught up once over at Killing of Cecil the lion just after he had been killed when I reported "facts" released by Sky News, only to have retract them about 6 hrs later! In this particular case about the pads, I suspect that any appeal will take months to settlement and therefore, the article will remain accurate in this respect until that time. Even if the appeal is successful, it remains a fact that the USDA have made this finding and should be in the article. We sometimes forget that all articles are "work in progress". All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably add it within the next few days. The way Trump has been using executive orders, though, it might not take that long.😉 (Whatever the Democrats accuse him of, it can't be not doing anything.) Right now I'm busy in real life and on-WP writing a draft article for Bill Bobo, 45-time World Champion. (😮) I'm hoping to do a DYK on him, so it has to be pretty good when launched. I'd also like to someday get it to GA. White Arabian Filly Neigh 23:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the rule didn't go through because it was published too late and not in full effect before T-rump took office and froze all regulations. It may or may not be revived. I think that before we add anything here, we wait for the dust to settle. (the bookies in London are offering 11/10 odds that Trump will be impeached. Vegas offers 4/1. Get out your popcorn) The soring and HPA articles can have more of the “newsy” stuff. Montanabw(talk) 05:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tennessee Walking 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:

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) 04:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tennessee_Walking_Horse&oldid=1208344400"