Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Unsourced articles and content

Is there any reason why we are keeping unsourced articles? For example, I came across Sport horse today. 15 years and no citations, all original research. Why not just toss such items into the Glossary of equestrian terms or Horse type or Horse breed or anywhere but its own standalone article with zero citations? Do we really need articles like this? When do we actually follow Wikipedia policy about OR? How long is too long for OR to remain?

Enquiring minds want to know. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced articles do not need to be deleted just because they have few sources. A lack of citations does not imply original reasearch, either. The idea is to improve them. We actually have several articles like this, draft horse, stock horse, polo pony, etc... and they were created for a specific reason: they have enough content and nuance that they can be a stand alone article, or at least a stand-alone list. Also, for some, people were making "breed" articles out of them or adding them to the list of horse breeds with no definition or explanation. So my take is expand, cite and improve. Montanabw^(talk) 23:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: I could understand that as a "reasonable explanation", but how does that align with wiki policies such as WP:Verifiability which says Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed, and WP:No original research which says all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources; additionally, ... any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations? And if we allow such articles to remain uncited (or 95% uncited, as many of these are) for over a decade, then why would anyone bother to improve them? Citing is usually added when content is created/added. Uncited articles make my brain squeak, and finding citations for unsourced material is harder than creating content from actual sources. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking "breed" to Horse breed versus List of horse breeds

From its creation in 2001, until 2009‎, Horse breed was simply a redirect to List of horse breeds. On 30 Jan 2009, an editor created and sourced an article for Horse breed, and today that article is substantially similar to that creation. On that same date in 2009, List of horse breeds was not as comprehensive or clear about "What is a horse breed?" as the new prose article, and it still isn't.

Most horse breed articles start out with a sentence like "Breedname is a breed of horse" with the word "breed" wikilinked to either Horse breed or List of horse breeds. Most of the horse breed articles were created prior to 2009 and so they use the wikilink to List of horse breeds. After 2009, many of them link to Horse breed, but the majority continue to link to the list-article.

Example code:

Breedname is a [[List of horse breeds|breed]] of horse
Breedname is a [[Horse breed|breed]] of horse
Breedname is a [[Horse breed|breed of horse]]
Breedname is a [[horse breed]]

Example #1 is common for articles written before 2009. Here are 158 wiki articles that link to the list article (and a few more here). Examples #2 and #3 and #4 make more sense. Here are 68 articles that correctly wikilink to Horse breed. (Disclaimer: I'm quite sure there are many more horse breed articles than these three insource searches can find.)

I think these older wikilinks should be changed to point to the Horse breed article because that is the prose-article which explains what is a horse breed, in depth, with adequate sources for verification. I consider it incorrect to link "breed" to the list-article because that doesn't give the depth of explanation that Horse breed does.

As I've gone through various horse breed articles to do work on them, I have started to change the older wikilinks to point to the Horse breed prose-article, away from the list-article, but on more than one occasion my edit has been reverted—specifically to revert that change.

I am interested in community feedback on whether these wikilinks should point to the prose-article or the list-article, and why you think it should be that way. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problem linking to Horse breed when that's the concept. Can't think of the acronym to the wiki guideline on this, but there's clear direction that links shouldn't go to something that's a complete surprise. I think there's a minor gray area in the individual breed articles where we say "The Foo horse is a horse breed," as I'm not sure if a casual reader would prefer to go to the list or the concept. I'd say that the two articles themselves should each contain a clear link to the other in the lede so that if someone wanted one but got the other, they can switch easily. Montanabw^(talk) 23:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: Did you ever figure out the "acronym to the wiki guideline" you were thinking of? ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French-wiki junk and the OKA project

We're still getting junk articles being translated from French-wiki by paid editors at OKA. (WP:WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKA, https://oka.wiki/)

The most recent I've encountered was:

Most of the articles are rote translations with no attention to guidelines in English-wiki, or sourcing. Primary problems are overlinking, no translation of French quotes, no checking that source URLs actually point to anything, no checking of sources themselves, poor English, editors who can't or won't take direction, and much more. It is exhausting to clean up their messes for low value articles they got paid for. Those articles which do get sent through AFC (which are few) are usually just accepted because those editors have no experience with the topic.

Any suggestions on how better to handle this ongoing and repeated problem? ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Pony Club § Merge proposal

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pony Club § Merge proposal. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 14:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]