Template talk:Equine coat colors

Spelling

This template gives the American spelling "color" and "gray" but not all pages on which it is transcluded use American spelling (e.g. Tricoloured (horse)). I created a Commonwealth spelling version {{Equine coat colours}} but it has been suggested that that be merged here. We could use something like {{Equine coat colors|sp=com}} instead but this is a little more tedious to input. Either way we've got to leave Commonwealth spelling as an option per WP:CONSISTENCY & WP:MOS#Consistency within articles. JIMp_talk·cont 12:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is having two navbox templates, this will "balkanize" the navigation so that people can't, for example, click "what links here" and find ALL the coat color articles. I say that we do whatever has to happen to make ONE template, I have no idea how the markup syntax works, but as long as I can put the basic template on all the color articles and those who care can add the markup so they don't have to endure seeing the "other" spelling, I guess they can. There is no need to have a split on Tricoloured, as it is actually a specialized British term rarely if ever used in the USA. As for consistency (a hobgoblin in many contexts--grin), we can also note WP:IAR (smile). Montanabw^(talk) 00:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since {{Equine coat colours}} actually transcluded this one, people could have clicked on "what links here" and find all the coat colour articles. That's said, I have done what is necessary to make this one template work for Commonwealth spelling ... there's only one thing left to do: get rid of template two (note the past tense in the first sentence ... actually I might move it to the sandbox). As for syntax, it will now be {{equine coat colors|sp=com}} (whereas as it had been {{equine coat colours}}) for Commonwealth spelling; the US spelling versions is the same as ever. Americans don't really use metres and litres much but you've still got your own way of spelling the units. Tricoloured may be rare in the US but when it does appear wouldn't it be spelt tricolored? The current version defaults to tricolored but, since you reckon it shouldn't I'll change it. As for enduring the "other" spelling, the reader will endure what ever spelling is used on the page but shouldn't have to endure inconsistency. IAR says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." It is my position that by allowing the template to fit in with the spelling used elsewhere on the page I am improving Wikipedia. If a rule helps you improve or maintain Wikipedia, follow it. JIMp_talk·cont 23:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you move to a sandbox and then blank it, a bot will eventually delete the page. The ability to add the "co" parameter seems to do the trick. You are correct that we Yanks don't use "colour" ever, but I think we can learn to cope with some UK English creeping into our world, even if we mock it by pronouncing it to rhyme with "velour"! LOL! But it isn't a moral issue, you can do as you wish there, I guess. Until someone else enters the fray with a different viewpoint... Montanabw^(talk) 22:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of seal brown and gray

Ok, now that seal brown identifies, with sources, the term as restricted to E^E_ A^t_, I'm for moving its entry up next to chestnut. I'm also for bringing gray down to "Markings and patterns".

1) Seal brown (At) is not genetically a type of black any more than bay is a type of black, and vice versa. 2) Gray is not a basic colour, it is a progressive pattern of white that can affect any basic colour. It is more comparable to Varnish roan than the basic colours. Ok, gray is kind of special in that it sometimes modifies the colour before removing it, but that doesn't always happen. --Pitke (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Let's discuss. Seal Brown is a form of Agouti, and most often manifests on a dark bay, so placement with chestnut is not suitable genetically. I think it best remains in the "modifiers" section (for example, a seal brown base with roan creates a nice weird color that's almost blue roan, but not quite) even though it mostly modifies bays. Gray is, well, a gray area; it isn't a "pattern" because it's (ultimately) uniform -- certainly the end result is -- and it isn't at all like Varnish roan (which is just weird and rather unpredictable, it doesn't consistently lighten like gray does). I agree that Gray is not precisely a base color, and it does kind of modify a color, but not at birth (as would sooty, seal brown, etc...) it's unique, really, and it "trumps" every other color. However, my argument is that it is a gene present at birth, and detectable via DNA testing even before it begins to modify. I guess I think we should leave seal brown where it's at, but I'm open to more discussion about gray, though I don't think "patterns" is the right home for it. The "markings and patterns" section is the way it is because of the cropout problem, User:Countercanter (rightly) pointed out that the distinction between a marking and a pattern can be a fine one, particularly where the KIT gene is involved, hence that grouping. Montanabw^(talk) 17:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What, what, manifests on a dark bay, what do you mean by this?`Seal brown, by our own wiki definition, can not manifest on any type of bay, since it's not a modifier or a pattern or a dilution, it's an allele of Agouti separate and independent from both black and bay.

As for grey vs varnish, well I just want to explain why I said they are similar.

Both are one-way progressive.
Both have a roanish, intermixed-white-hairs type of thing going on. (Fun fact: Swedes call roan "constant skimmel" and grey "whitening skimmel". Finns did as well until , eh, somewhere in the 80s I guess?)
Both hold deep intrigue for me. How do they work? Is it about "running out of" certain cells? Semi-specialized melano-thingamagig cells? Why not bony parts? Are there multiple G alleles, or are the rate and the steel vs rose phenomenon due to zygosity or modifiers? And, most importantly, with some greys being sparkly white at age 3 onwards, and some greys looking like their favourite pastime is to take motorcycle rides without helmets, how come Americans aren't pouring money on it until DNA tests come out?

I'm agitated and will return later to see if I have anything meaningful to say. --Pitke (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, you can read this when un-agitated. (grin)

There IS a DNA test for gray, and they have identified the alleles for the Lp leopard complex too, with a DNA test probably on the horizon. LP is required for a varnish roan. Varnishing may be a variant allele of Lp, but it does NOT progress through life, eventually the color stabilizes (at least as much as it does on a roan) and the horse may have a lighter winter coat but a darker summer coat. For grays, steel and rose are mostly linked to underlying coat color, chestnuts and bright bays most likely to go rose, with steel grays seen in darker foals. The flea-bitten phenemona is interesting, but far more often seen in heterozygous grays. Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seal brown is not a "separate" color from bay, it's just another allele of Agouti, which acts the same way on bays and seal brown horses, which have traditionally also been called "dark bay" or "mahogany bay" in English (as well as merely "Brown"). It's still a horse with point coloration, a black mane and tail, but black suppressed in the coat. Look carefully at the genetics bit in Seal_brown_(horse)#Genetics_of_seal_brown Agouti only acts when E is present, and it's action is to suppress black to the points, allowing red to show through. The seal brown allele merely does a poorer job of restricting the black color. (Similarly, one could argue that wildtype agouti, if they map that allele, does a BETTER job, at least on the legs) So if a chestnut carries Agouti in any form, no one would know by looking, it doesn't darken "e" (red) coats. (FYI, unless there's a new study out, there is no genetic test yet - or even a gene located - distinguishing the proposed forms of E, like E^E, by the way). Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, if that helps clarify things any? Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) There is a DNA test that distinguishes between fast grey and slow grey, and dapples vs smooth, and the rate of fleabites appearing?

2) We're clearly talking in different contexts. AFAICT you're speaking language/etymology/convention-ese, while I'm talking genetic-ese. Also, you're using bay to mean at least "any agouti" (vs black) and possibly also "A^A_", while I'm using bay for "A^A_".

3) It should be decided whether the template follows a) genetic line of thought, b) conventional l-o-t. (with some basic horsey knwoledge), or c) every-man's l-o-t.

4) 3/c is a joke though. I'd rather pee in my sock and walk five miles than sort the template by "black horsey, brown horsey, white horsey, yellow horsey, grey horsey" :P

--Pitke (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) No, just a test for the presence of the gray gene. (Clearly there are additional factors involved) Not sure your point? I don't want to go into OR land or make content forks. Why one horse dapples and another goes salt and pepper is unknown. Flea-bittenness seems to be more prevalent in heterozygous horses, but no clear studies.
2) No, I'm talking genetics too, but acknowledging that terminology is in flux (at least in English, where we also have tons of regional crap too). Seal Brown is influenced by one of the alleles of Agouti. Agouti is masked unless a horse carries E, so not sure why you brought it up as related to chestnut (e) because it has no effect on a red coat. I say "bay" because in English-speaking layperson land, bays are defined in general as horses with a reddish-brownish coat and black points. This includes seal brown, A^A and wildtype, - and the colloquial blood bays, and "bright" bays, and mahogany bays, and "black-bays" (I particularly loathe that term) and dark bays, and so on, and on, and on ... The Arabian registry, for example, registers seal brown horses as "bay," but people trying to sell them like to call them "black-bay" :-P. Other registries might say "brown" but not "seal brown." (And then Kentucky Derby winner Big Brown was clearly a blood bay and not seal brown ...sigh...don't get me going)
3) I suspect we have to have a bit of a hybrid. We have to be in line with modern genetics, particularly those genetics where there is currently a solid DNA test. However, if we were to do everything the geneticists want, the thing would be incomprehensible to a layperson. :-P
4) Aw, come on, then the grays should be "white horsey" (per all the grays once called "white" in Commons =:-O) LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 18:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my thinking is twofold:

A) This is a navbox for all existing articles on coat color in en.wiki (not all existing colors. I think your proposal was just to put Seal Brown with chestnut and gray as a pattern. I disagree with both, but did I misunderstand? I'm open to ideas for improved navigation and grouping by appropriate families, just not this particular way. (Arguably, "agouti"/seal brown/bay/wildtype bay is genetically a modifier, not a base color, and Gray is in a class all by itself, so yes, there is a bit of a problem). And say, did you run across the "Mushroom" thing? or was that Pesky?

B) I think you and I may also have a project: Fixing and rewriting the mess that is equine coat color genetics. There is what is verified with DNA research, there is what is suspected but not yet verified by DNA research, and there is layperson's understandings (or misunderstandings), you are right. This probably means getting Sponenberg and Bowling's textbooks (and other more recent ones, if any) via interlibrary loan (I think both are very expensive texts, like $100 or more each) and calling Countercanter in out of retirement. Interested? Montanabw^(talk) 18:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Will this work?' I was thinking about your concerns, and would this fix the problem? Lean toward science a bit more: Put chestnut (e) and black (E) ONLY as base coat colors, then rename "other color modifiers" to something like "base coat color modifiers" and move Bay, Seal Brown and Gray to that. Put sooty and liver with the "Other" section at the bottom of the patterns, and maybe move that out of the "Patterns" section altogether. Maybe add some of the gene articles like agouti and such to the genetics and breeding section at the bottom as well? Thoughts? Maybe I'll play with this so you can see if you like it and if it solves the problem. Montanabw^(talk) 19:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making another set of tweaks, per this article placing Agouti with "base" colors. Montanabw^(talk) 22:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two base color categories

Currently they're separated into Extension (black, chestnut) and Agouti (bay, seal brown). This is basically an arbitrary decision, it could just as easily be Extension (bay, chestnut) and Agouti (black, seal brown) or Extension (chestnut) and Agouti (bay, black, seal brown). I propose just merging them all into the base colors section and letting the articles explain the relation. Iamnotabunny (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go ahead and do this, as no one has replied. (In case further explanation is needed - A and E are both wildtype alleles, but around 2010 the most common explanation of horse color genetics started by assuming a and e instead. Some websites such as the UCD VGL that previously used this chestnut-based explanation have moved away from it since.) Iamnotabunny (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]