This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Can we rename this "WikiProject Equine" (singular)? I think that is grammatically more correct...other wikiprojects are "Dogs" Cats" Birds" etc., but not Canine, Feline... there's a good argument for this to be "Equine" and not "horse" because the non-horse Equidae are included. But, probably due to the latin root, "Equines" just sounds weird. "Equidae" is the plural form, I believe, not "Equines." And "Equidae" is even more obscure so I don't advise it. Just my opinion. Montanabw(talk)04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This project would deal with all articles related to horses, and contained in the Category:Horses, and all related subcategories, which are not already explicitly covered by other projects.
Montanabw(talk) 04:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC) but my focus is working on articles more than organizing the project. That's fine. I tend to do most of the organization functions much of the time anyway. John Carter (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This project, if it comes into existence, would provide a central point for all articles related to horses. It acknowledges the existence of the other extant projects which relate to horses, and expects to focus its attention on those articles which are not directly within the scope of any of the other extant projects. However, should any of those projects become inactive or deleted, this project would be available to provide at least support for those articles then. John Carter20:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I think if a bunch of horse-lovers get together to form this project, it could be really strong and big. However, if people who are not interested in horses join, that could turn into a problem. #User:Majestysquest --Majestysquest (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this is needed. Note to those who are interested, we already have Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing, Wikipedia:WikiProject horse training, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds. These three could be somehow affiliated, though all three are already pretty big and definitely worth of being free-standing (and in fact have been for at least 18 months, if not longer). What we are doing is sort of creating a project hierarchy backwards (horse should have come first and then these existing ones spun off, but oh well. Someone did put the cart before the horse! (groan)). There is also cross-fertilization (if you will) with Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture and Wikipedia:Wikiproject mammals. Some horse articles are also tagged for Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life and yet others have assorted sport tags on them. I don't know how the project hierarchy stuff works, but there are (rough guess) at least several hundred, if not 1,000 equine-related articles already in wiki, so a clearinghouse is probably in order. I support this project. But it is going to be a job! We need expertise and advice from wikipedians who have taken on things this big before! If we don't get it reined in, the thing could take the bit in its teeth and bolt! (FYI, I can contribute more bad puns as needed!) Montanabw(talk)04:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we definitely need this broader coverage, but I fail to see the need for four such projects and would like to see something done to combine them somehow. I particularly don't see the need for Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds together with this project and would prefer to see that project's scope expanded. Still, you can count me in.--Doug.(talk • contribs)05:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I've kinda been involved in the creation of a project or two. I can probably at least get the project page and associated materials started. Regretably, what with everything I've been involved with at various times, I'm probably not going to be the best person to look to to be involved in the active maintenance and upkeep of the project itself. John Carter14:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I feel pretty strongly about keeping Horses and Horse breeds separate, one can be "kin" of the other. There are too many articles already for people working on those others projects to keep organized in what we have. I certainly wouldn't merge without their approval. I think if we have a project at all, a general "Horses" category would make for a better jumping-off point, but see no reason to merge these in...horses aren't just livestock in the way food animals are, they are also sporting atheletes, etc., really an entire lifestyle! Montanabw(talk)17:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, if horse breeds were merged into horses, it would probably be merged in as a separate subpage of the main project page, basically just getting the name of the existing project page changed. It would also probably be able to use the horses banner and as a result hopefully get slightly more input into the articles in question. John Carter14:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I would submerge the Horse breeds project into a category. In fact, I think what most would-be projects need most at this point is better use of categories. --Una Smith (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Well gang, while we have been all sitting around and jawing about it, someone else has just gone off and created Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine. It's even broader than "Horse" as it includes donkeys, zebras, etc., but what the heck. It's done. Doug: You just got wikiproject Ag off the ground, so can you roam over to this one and see what wasn't done properly? I have gone in and cleaned it up cosmetically quite a bit, but I have no idea how the protocol works, so I figure what's done is done and now let's just work with it. Montanabw(talk)06:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Should include organizations, too
We should include in the scope horse-related organizations, such as American Horse Council, USEF, USET, AHSA, etc. They are a big part of the horse world. At the least, they should have category tags added so they link to this project. I've started to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T-bonham (talk • contribs) 23:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. In the cosmic scheme of dealing with the total disaster of uncategorized articles, incorrectly categorized articles and too many illogical, hard to find categories, I see we have another brushfire. (Sigh) Take a look at the additional category I added to the AHC article and maybe surf the other horse association articles from there to see what we can do. Rather than tagging it for wikiproject equine as a category, let's put the {{Eqtalk}} header on the talk page instead. (I did it for AHC) I sure don't disagree with you that somehow these association articles are all part of the mix. The first task is FINDING them--I didn't know there was an AHC article, as it wasn't attached to any horse category until now. Arrgh! Well, don't let me slow you down, just be sure to add Category:Equestrian organizations to the articles you find if it isn't already there. Will that work? Montanabw(talk)04:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
GA Candidates and potential featured articles
Easy Jet -- I'm (User:Ealdgyth) in the last steps of getting this article ready for WP:Good article nominations and would welcome everyone ripping it to shreds before I do so. And we should probably set up a subpage for this sort of thing.
FYI, Whoever wants to set up a sandbox/archive off this page is welcome to do so. So far, there are four GA articles in the Equidae section, if you want to look at them for ideas of what passes muster. They are: Horses in warfare, Horses in the Middle Ages, Equine nutrition, and Arabian horse. Bottom line is that when something goes for GA, it best be footnoted up the wazoo and then footnoted some more. They also tend to want really good introduction sections. Montanabw(talk)00:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
True, many wikiprojects rank quality and importance, wikiproject veterinary medicine is another. If anyone knows how to make the templates up an paste the markup here, it will be a daunting job (there are hundreds of horse articles, if not thousands) but worth having the tools. Montanabw(talk)06:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are the instructions for creating the assessment tool. I have no experience with creating templates/categories, so if someone else would like to play with creating everything that's needed, I'd be more than happy to work on tagging articles when it goes live.Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - I think the link that I posted above (reposted Here) tells you how to create the project banners for the article talk pages. Due to my tech illiteracy I don't really understand what they're saying, but I think that's what they're trying to explain (if that makes any sense at all!). Check out step two under the "setting up the bot" section. Dana boomer (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked at that page too, and it just made no sense. Heck, it took me eight months to figure out how to get a bot to archive my talk page automatically (which, I believe I have finally managed to do, yay me!) I figured I'd dodge doing it if I possibly could... Ealdgyth | Talk20:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
For WP:MED, the template is Template:WPMED and to use the template you edit an article's talk page and insert {{WPMED|class=|importance=}}. So, I will simply copy the WPMED template to make a WPEQ template. Instead of just a banner, you'll get a banner with assessments indicated, and automagically also some statistics and index pages that will help with prioritizing project tasks. --Una Smith (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, good, Una understands. Yay Una! Of course, does Una realize they just set themselves up for all the technical problems for WPEQ? Ealdgyth | Talk20:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, Template:WPEQ now exists and I have tagged a few talk pages with {{WPEQ|class=|importance=}}. May I suggest someone work down the list of pages linked to Image:Nickel de Vives.jpg and tag them all? Stub and Start class are fairly obvious, and GA class is a very short list; if in doubt, assign no class. Ditto re importance; assign no importance. This project will need to work out some guidelines re both class and importance. --Una Smith (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest Horse, Equine, Equestrianism should definitely be Top. As far as GA status goes, it's granted by the Good Article Wikiproject, so we can't assign it at random. Same sort of deal for FA, the people at Featured Article get kinda ticked if you just slap it on. I'll try to do some assements as I get the time. Oh, and thank you for doing the template, Una. I may have teased you about it, but it's appreciated very much. Ealdgyth | Talk21:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Horse breeds
Did a blatent cut and paste of that lovely template over to the WikiProject Horse breeds one. I think it works so we won't have to re-tag any horse breed articles, but because I don't want to a) do more categories and b) screw up the syntax, it will direct all the assessed breed articles to the WikiProject Equine categories, which may be more efficient anyway, as far as the purpose of finding articles to improve goes. Anyone who actually understands the syntax (I don't, I just changed the photo and the titles) maybe check to see if I screwed it up. The up side is that we won't have to re-tag anything in the horse breeds area, which is good, because I am at "S" on the list with tags! YIKES!!! Montanabw(talk)04:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks like what you did is working fine. The only thing is that all of the articles already tagged with the horse breeds wikiproject tag are now classified as "unassessed", and so at some point we'll have to go through and put classifications on all of them. I can start working on this, though. Dana boomer (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
good sketch. My thinking is that Low, Mid and High are all we need, not Top (though if all the other wikipedia projects use it, oh well, I don't care that much).
I agree that Mid fits most breed articles (the obscure breeds are probably low, however). I also agree that very well-written articles can raise themselves up to Mid status.
I think health articles should mirror their ranking in WikiProject Veterinary medicine, if that project has assessed them, unless there is something particularly unique to the horse world that justifies a higher ranking. (I can see where some low-ranked articles in the vet world might be mid-ranked articles for horse owners)
I agree with the low list, though major "portal" articles on tack and disciplines that lead to more detailed articles such as saddle, bridle, horse harness, horse care, etc., should be mid or above. Ditto for the major equestrian disciplines, such as the FEI recognized sports.
Don't confuse importance with category; eg parts of the horse probably all merit the same importance, regardless of level of detail (skeleton, conformation, fetlock, navicular bone); look at the criteria for assessing importance: importance has mostly to do with notability (local, regional, global) plus interest. Horse anatomy has global notability although rather low interest. "Joe's riding school" probably has local notability and low interest unless it is an extraordinary riding school; eg the world's best circus riding school, no matter how obscure it might be outside of circus circles. The Spanish riding school has global notability and high interest so should be assessed high or even top. Top would be for articles of highest interest to non-horsemen worldwide. Eg, equid evolutionary history, domestication of the horse, horse slaughter, funeral practices involving horses, etc. Also, there is a widely held idea that articles rated Top should be a project's highest priority for development to Featured Article status. (Although a Featured Article can be of any importance.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Una Smith (talk • contribs) 16:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I tagged the stuff where I knew content, feel free to change my assessments if you'd like. I haven't done as much of the ranking stuff in any other project, so maybe the priority here should be to steal the asseessment scale from WP:Agriculture (or wherever) and tweak it to our needs. A handy "this is A, this is B" guide would be good, as well as the above explanation of importance rankings. Una, is this something you can start for us? Montanabw(talk)00:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Adding articles to the project
Now that we have a start on tagging, there's a bot to automagically tag articles based on their categories and wikilinks. So our project statistics table will grow and we can use the automatically genereated index pages to pinpoint the articles needing assessment. I have assessed over 1000 articles for WP:MED, which now has over 12,000 articles. These tools make the assessment job relatively painless. --Una Smith (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Una is a wonderful, that makes great sense! Of course, I have no idea how to do it... Hey, I ride horses in the 21st century, you expect us riders to be tech savy?Ealdgyth | Talk02:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that's all I've seen. I spent a bit of time tagging tonight. I can only do so much of that before my eyes cross. If anyone disagrees with my assessments, please feel free to change them. I didn't rate some on a few, because I'm unsure about them. I left comments in my edit summaries for those. Ealdgyth | Talk05:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I tag as I go along, or when I am bored with content editing. Then I use the "index" link just above the table to go here and assess just a handful of articles in just one cell of the table. --Una Smith (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been moving through the horse categories, tagging as I go. I did NOT tag Category:Mythological horses of Category:Standardbred racehorses. If the consensus is that we should, we can always go back and hit them. Wasn't sure what people's thoughts were on it. I did tag Black Beauty and Black Stallion and Mister Ed. If folks don't think they belong, feel free to remove the tags. Ealdgyth | Talk21:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
No opinion (that's a surprise) on the mythological horses and the race horses. Maybe the TB people should merge in the Standardbreds, dunno. Don't care.
As for the rest, My sense is that the horse training project can be merged into this one and put out of its misery because it's an inactive project, but the horse breeds project has a few people involved independently of this one (I think Dana and I are the only people working on both) and it is so bloated all on its own, plus it's a "senior" project to this one (by a good year or two) that I think it's OK to keep separate. (350 articles, last count) For one thing, the horse breeds project also has an infobox template for all its articles and maybe 1/4 of them have a proper infobox, there's yet another grunt work job. Can't help but have some overlap, but I think merging the projects would be more work than its worth. That's just my opinion, go over there and take a look. Whole different set of problems there, mostly having to do with article improvement.
Over here, we have a daunting task on our hands just figuring out what's there, working on tags and assessments, etc. before we can get too gung-ho on improving article beyond those where we already have our own interests. We are going to have to figure out the categories here, too, they are a total mess with insufficient rhyme or reason. That's my two cents, anyway. Montanabw(talk)05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Having spent a good chunk of the day tagging and assessing, I have to agree, the categories are a complete disaster. I'm thinking that's our next big project after the tagging. I have NO problem with the breeds project staying separate, I'm tagging for both projects (and the Thoroughbred folks too) as I go through. Breeds and registries and "types" go to Breeds, TB and stuff with TB racing get the TB racing tag, and everything else, minus the mythological, comes here. Lucky us. And I'm just going to go 'la-la-la-I-don't-see-you' to the Standarbred articles. There are like fifty or sixty of them.. ugh!Ealdgyth | Talk05:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
If the projects maintain separate assessment tags, those breed articles eventually will need to be tagged also WPEQ. Also, no matter what else happens the categories will need to be cleaned up. The alternative is to witness the creation of essentially duplicate articles. That happened between WP:MED and WP:CLINMED, and is one reason that just recently WPCLINMED was merged into WPMED. --Una Smith (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not 100% sure they need duplicate tags, after all, aren't we suppose to REMOVE the tags to WikiProject Mammals on any horse pages now that we have a project? I can see the problem of duplicate articles, but if we have good cross referencing, IMHO the breed articles are so distinct from any other type of horse articles that they aren't apt to be duplicated for that reason (an argument could be made to double-tag the "types" and some of the scientific articles, like Horse breeding), I'm prone to wait until the problem arises and then merge the tags if it does. Montanabw(talk)00:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The convention is to leave other projects' tags alone, if the tags are relevant, unless there is an agreement between the projects to do otherwise. So I would say do not remove Wikiproject Mammals tags from articles such as Horse, but do remove them from articles such as Equestrian helmet. --Una Smith (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, but speaking of duplication, our bigger problem happens to be orphaned stuff, just merged an orphaned article on "breeding to a draft horse" into draft horse that actually had some substantive content, but no cat, no wikilinks, no one even knew it was out there until a random user happened to find it and gave it a merge tag. Montanabw(talk)00:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup. To search I often use the "Search" button rather than the "Go" button, precisely in order to discover orphan and/or duplicate articles. --Una Smith (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Quality aka class
The Quality in the assessments table is generated by tagging each article's talk (discussion) page with {{WPEQ|class=}}. Classes below GA can be assessed by anyone. GA involves a review process external to any project. Once assessed GA, an article can be kept at GA, or demoted to a lower class, upon a repeat of the GA review process. Some projects have an internal process by which they can upgrade a GA article to A. Some projects do not bother with A. I would say don't worry about A, except to examine any articles that are assessed A; in all likelihood, they need to be demoted. Above A is FA, which is the result of another review process external to any project. Being FA makes the article a candidate to appear on the Wikipedia main page for a day. --Una Smith (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Each Project assigns a class, and they can be different. However, the idea is to use objective standards, so if one project changes the class normally the other projects will do the same. If you change an article to a non-article (dab, redirect, etc.), it is okay to change the class accordingly in all project tags. Otherwise, leave them alone. BTW, projects often assign different importance tags. --Una Smith (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
No, not in two different projects, I meant by the SAME project. Can we assess a GA article ALSO a "A" class? Or does it matter or do we care? I ask just because the lists put the A articles above the GA articles. Montanabw(talk)02:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmph. What's illogical is that, as anal-retentive as the GA assessment is getting to be, a GA article should automatically also be an "A" article, yet they have separate classes, and the "A" class is above GA. That is weird. Is it that way across all projects? Montanabw(talk)19:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Look at it the other way: any "A" article should necessarily have passed a GA assessment, or be demoted to "B" pending GA assessment. --Una Smith (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello all. I've been doing a lot of work on the FEI World Equestrian Games over the recent year or so. Just discovered this project, and I guess those articles I've been working on best fall under this project. So, just wanted to introduce myself. I'm an active member in a few other projects, primarily WikiProject Ice Hockey. However, I have discovered much about the horse world in the last two years and have taken my newfound knowledge onto Wikipedia. Happy editing! – Nurmsook! (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome, welcome. I'm guessing it was me running through and tagging the games article that made you notice this little bitty section of Wikipedia. Glad to have you on! Ealdgyth | Talk04:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Assessment Table
I've created all of the needed categories and integrated everything into the assessment bot. The new table can be found at: Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Equine_articles_by_quality_statistics. The bot is apparently only run every three days to update the table, but you can go here and run it to update it sooner, just beware that it takes a while. All of the categories are created, even though it only shows a couple of them in the table...they just don't all have articles yet! Now for the fun part of tagging every horse article in Wikipedia with the new template! It should probably be updated on the main page that this should be used instead of the eqtalk one...
Looks good to me, I started changing out the tags and hitting a few of the assessments. I'll work a bit more on the tagging in a little while, after I finish a major renovation project on an article. Ealdgyth | Talk01:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you think we should have both the new template and the horse breeds project template on all breeds pages? It makes it look a little full, but I don't know if there's a way we can integrate both projects into the same template, and IMO if we're going to have an assessment/table system, we should use it for all horse articles, including breed ones. I hope this makes sense...I'm exhausted, not thinking straight and going to bed before I really screw up an article!Dana boomer (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we make the Horse Breeds template into a rating template without having to do a whole new version? That would be my preference, given that WikiProject Horse breeds is a separate "child" project (and there are something like 300 breed articles, I dumped them all into a spreadsheet once and counted them!). Montanabw(talk)03:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
WOW! Great work!! Note that the assessment template has red links for the assessment scale and importance scale; in other templates, this link goes to the general wikipedia scales that explain what B class, C class, GA class, etc. are (I think WikiProject Agriculture's does this). I have no clue how to make the edit work, but Una or Dana or Ealdgyth, one of you guys can probably figure it out. I'll fix the template on the main page, what should we do with EQtalk? Can it be deleted? Do we care? Montanabw(talk)03:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
After being somewhat recruited by Una Smith and Montanabw, I've scanned through scanning through the history of this project and have some suggestions. Before everyone continues tagging articles, I'd suggest you consider my points.
First relates to the fate of the child projects. From the discussion above, it seems as though Wikipedia:WikiProject horse training is mostly inactive. There was also a suggestion to somewhat merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds into Equine. What I would do is move these projects to become task forces of Equine. These two projects seem to only consist of one page each (as in there are no assessment or other pages). Making these into task forces would be as simple as renaming the page.
Second has to do with assessment tagging. From my understanding, {{WikiProject Horse breeds}} is already on many articles. These articles were previously unassessed, but are now beginning to be assessed with expansion of that template. Additionally, all of these articles are getting the new {{WPEQ}} tag. If this is true, here's my recommendation. Rather than having 2 separate templates, combine them into one. If Horse breeds is a task force of Equine, it could be included in the Equine template. {{WPEQ}} can be modified to accept an argument for task forces. If this parameter is set, it will mention that the article is part of the task force, and there will be an additional link to that page. Articles tagged with {{WikiProject Horse breeds}} could be programmed to automatically display the {{WPEQ}} template with the task force addition.
Finally, I noticed that there was discussion of having one assessment for both Equine and Horse breeds. Even with one template, it is possible to have 2 different assessment tables. For example, there could be Equine statistics that include all articles, in addition to a separate, subset of Horse breeds statistics.
Hmm. Kind of. As Una is the only person who really seems to "get" the project stuff, but she's very busy, and I for one am stumbling around in the dark on the project syntax, (and the person who actually got the project off the ground has vanished) Let me explain more. First off, yes, WikiProject Horse training is deader than a doornail. In theory, there are several dozen horse-training related articles (including some biographies of horse trainers) that could someday need a separate task force to work and organize it all, and so if you can help us make that into a task force, go for it. (I think I am the only person at the moment who even cares).
As for the breed articles, basically, ALL the horse breed articles in Category:Horse breeds are now tagged for WikiProject Horse breeds (only 350 or so), and they are NOT double-tagged for WPEQ. (A couple of exceptions out there, but minor and for obscure reasons) However, both tags direct to the same category assessment lists as far as assessment goes (look at template:WikiProject Horse breeds to see what I mean). The big thing here is that the horse breeds project was a good two years older than this one, so that "parent-child" question has a chicken or egg parameter (grin). Now, if you can explain how to just go get all those templates and redo them as WPEQ-Horse breeds task force or something, it's "potayto-potahto" to me. The important thing is that the horse breed articles not be lumped into the main project--take a look at the fairly extensive page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds and you will see that the big deal is to try (arrgh) to get something approaching a standardized format for all the breed articles, i.e. a specific infobox has already been developed (not used for other WPEQ articles). The needs are different than for the rest of the project because the breeds are at least organized, categorized and so on. It's more an article improvement project than an organizational one. Does that make sense?
I'll go ahead and start merging the assessment templates, making the Horse breeds a pseudo-task force of Equine. {{WPEQ}} will treat Horse breeds as a task force. I still recommend moving Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds to Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Horse breeds and conversion to a task force. The rationale to keep Horse breeds separate (to have a standard format and not for organizational purposes) is even more of a reason to make it a task force, rather than a separate project. So the only question I have for right now is whether the horse breed articles should have a separate article assessment table. These articles can still be included in the main Equine assessment table, but the subset would also exist separately. --Scott Alter05:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I just finished "merging" {{WikiProject Horse breeds}} into {{WPEQ}}. {{WikiProject Horse breeds}} now redirects to {{WPEQ|breeds=yes}}, so {{WikiProject Horse breeds}} should no longer be used, in favor of {{WPEQ|breeds=yes}}. If you compare Talk:Mule to Talk:American Quarter Horse, you can what adding breeds=yes does. If you decide to keep sub-statistics on Horse breeds, you can easily enable this by reverting my last edit to {{WPEQ}}. This will place the horse breeds articles into "class-Class horse breeds articles" categories, and you can then tell WP 1.0 Bot to run the statistics on the categories. --Scott Alter06:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks good, I like what you did (I have no clue how you did it, more than two brackets and my eyes cross! I have a small bit of macular damage from a detached retina last fall, and [ looks like { to me, makes a lot of wikisyntax quite a challenge, so thanks for your help!). Now, can we replace the little red dot with the little WikiProject Horse breeds horse head (silly, I know, but it would be cute to have SOMETHING other than a dot): File:Chevalcastillonnais.jpg I suppose if we could find a silhouette or something simpler (like a horseshoe) that would work too... maybe if you can set up the horse head, if we find something simpler we can replace it without fooling with the sizing syntax too much?Montanabw(talk)08:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave the task force question until the rest of the project members have had a chance to weigh in. Oh and, we never broke out the statistics separately, so that's no sweat. Will adding the breeds=yes create a separate page of just articles tagged for the project? I didn't see how that was linked (?) (Would be handy for comparing to Category:Horse breeds from time to time, lots of orphaned articles get created that we don't know about until we do a scan). Last question: Talk:Jennet was an example of an article with a different assessment under the horse breeds list than the WPEQ list (it is relatively unimportant in the general scheme of things, but was an important historical source of foundation bloodstock for several horse breeds). There are probably only about 5 or 6 double-tagged articles like this, is it just best not to do this at all, or can we somehow tag things that are more important to the breeds project???...? Montanabw(talk)08:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I just made 2 more modifications to the template. 1) Articles tagged with breeds=yes (or that use the old template) will now automatically be placed in Category:Horse breeds task force articles. So there is now an organizational category containing all of the horse breeds project-related articles in one place (which I do not think there was before). 2) I changed the red dot to the photo. You can change the size or photo if you wish. Just modify the Image tag that uses "Chevalcastillonnais.jpg" and keep the width less than 90px.
For the double tagged articles, one tag should be removed. The quality assessment is not an issue, as it should be standard across all grading schemes. However, there can only be one importance assessment - so you'd have to find common ground and decide on one importance. You should use the project's importance scale to decide on the importance of the article. --Scott Alter11:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much Scott, but why did you remove all the other language that puts the articles into various categories based on other assessment criteria? I know that the start and stup class articles in particular will be important for us to gather together for improvement projects... ? Montanabw(talk)01:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Just because you can't find the code doesn't mean it's not there. :) Everything is still sorted as it was before (see Category:Equine articles by quality for proof). I moved that portion of the code to a different transcluded template. Since this code is basically the same for all WikiProject assessment templates, it is easier to manage if it is centralized. It is also very easy now to sub-assess articles specifically for task forces. So if you'd want to see the Horse breeds assessments in a separate table and in separate categories (in addition to being part of the all-encompassing Equine assessment), this could be set up easily and quickly without duplication of code. --Scott Alter02:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, now that I understand (in theory) how this works, yes, take the horse breeds into a task force too. By the way, you have been incredibly helpful and in general deserve a barnstar or something (especially given this project, a "barn" star seems more than apt.) Montanabw(talk)00:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey User:Montanabw, if you actually create a "barn" star with a barn or some other good farm type symbol on it, please consider posting it on a sub-page of WP:FARM as we really could use that across the board. I don't do barn stars but I've seen a few cases that probably warranted them over there and had nothing suitable to award. --Doug.(talk • contribs)07:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The article didn't make FAC, but it wasn't that far off either. I think the editor who nominated it didn't know what to expect and had not set aside much time to fix the issues brought up in the review process. An article nominated for FAC sails through, gets rewritten at speed and squeaks through, or does not get through. --Una Smith (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Disaster articles section?
Should we create a place for article improvement drives or suggestions? For example, I just read laminitis and it is a freaking disaster. It starts off OK, it's long and it has some citations, but it devolves into some POV promotion of one particular treatment I've never heard of, (probably involving a commercial product) plus a long POV bit from the barefoot movement people. A little scary. Montanabw(talk)18:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
What if we did a sub-page of the main article that was basically a listing of larger articles that need extensive cleanup? It could have sub-sections within the page for breed articles, vet articles, tack articles, etc that need work. It wouldn't be a listing for stubs that need work, just for longer articles needing major cleanup due to POV, lack of references, etc. It wouldn't take too long to set up the main page, if you'd like me to do it, and then everyone can add articles to it as they find them, and clean them up as they have time. Dana boomer (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Allright, it's made. Check it out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Articles Needing Cleanup. I've linked it into the main page with its own section, just under the FA/GA section. Please feel free to add articles to the list as you find them, as well as adding new sections as they're needed...I just put in what popped into my head while I was creating the page. Dana boomer (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I worked on it some, mostly in the Causes section. It still needs work, mostly by someone prepared to read technical articles. The very next step, work almost anyone can do, should be to recast the entire article in the WP:MEDMOS style for diseases. --Una Smith (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Since I managed to set up my talk page to archive by bot, I'll try to do that here... wish me luck. 30 days without a post seem like a good plan? Ealdgyth | Talk22:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
We can always go back and hit the two racing cats if needed. I'm pretty sure that we don't need to cover unicorns, and horse accidents or model horses. I'll post my cleanup finds over on the other subpage.Ealdgyth | Talk21:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What was your reasoning behind leaving out equestrians? I would think that if riding horses was the main reason that these people were notable, they would be a part of our project. If they were simply equestrians on the side (i.e., the article mentions that Joe Smith liked to ride horses) that's one thing, but people who are notable because they rode horses should be tagged, IMHO. Agree on the rest of the stuff though. At some point (far in the future when we have our own project more firmly under control!) the horse racing category should become a task force of the Equine project, if it is not revived by someone in the meantime. But for now...we have enough problems to deal with :) Nice work. Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Honestly? I didn't want to do them? And I wasn't sure that I wouldn't mis-assess them on importance. Easier to leave them to someone else who has a firmer grasp of who is a BIG name and who is merely small fry. (I don't follow Olympic dressage/show jumping/etc at all). I also just started from the Horses category, so I didn't get all the cats under Equidae, like the donkeys and the zebras. I picked up some along the way through other things, but the parent cat for Horses probably needs to be gone through at some point. I don't think I can bear staring at tagging for a bit though. THat was a LOT of tagging I did... Ealdgyth | Talk00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability is not relevant to whether or not to include an article in a project. That said, if you don't want to assess an article, don't. No big deal. --Una Smith (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree that the horse racing articles (only a thousand or so, seems every horse that hit the track has an article) can be the child of the Racing WikiProject, I will eat popcorn on the sidelines and go "rah, rah, rah." As for the Equestrians section, that is a minefield. I could have some fun by assessing Monty Roberts as "low" and watch the sparks fly! LOL! I say leave the Equestrians for the horse training task force, if anyone ever cares to revive it. That's part of what it was created for, I think. Montanabw(talk)06:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
But now that horse training is a part of WP Equine, wouldn't that mean they would be tagged with our banner? And Ealdgyth, I wasn't trying to dismiss your contribution; you have done an IMMENSE amount of tagging and we are all thankful for that. I humbly apologize if I sounded witchy... I was just asking if at some point the equestrian articles should be tagged, not griping at you about not doing them. Dana boomer (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Didn't think you were complaining, and you didn't sound witchy. I apologize if I sounded like I was witchy. Do we want to tag the equestrians? I kinda lean towards they should be, but by someone who knows them better than I (and by someone on a faster connection than Montana). If we just want them all tagged "low importance" I can do thtat, I just can't tell which ones are big names and which ones are skirting the edge of notablity and should probably be prodded. Ealdgyth | Talk15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that's the solution unless you happen to know the field. The quality can be assessed by anyone because the criteria is content neutral. Montanabw(talk)03:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree as to references, but beware: You are just touching the tip of the iceberg on the tack articles, there is an article about every component of the bridle too, and I think every bit under the sun, many separate articles. Actually, some are not too bad. But these overview articles often need cleanup and really good wikilinking so that their "offspring" can be found. (For example, bit ring, bit mouthpiece, bit shank and all the different types of bit and bridle articles are each pretty long and generally thorough, not suitable for merging, but sourcing...oh lordy, most of the info is correct, but a lot of it was there before I became a wikipedian...note that all the articles created by User:Eventer, and she did hundreds, are mostly unsourced. Probably best to not get too upset about that unless someone actually challenges a section, or we will be eliminating a lot of good material. Montanabw(talk)06:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
"tip of the iceberg" is the normal situation on Wikipedia. WP:MED has nearly 13,000 articles and still growing, and I have personally tagged about 1,000 of them. --Una Smith (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I am still working on the same bunch of related articles, only now with lots of company:
That is the understatement of the century! We have a full-blown dustup with admin intervention going on, and by the way, I will go to the mat to not have the hackamore article demoted to a disambiguation page, but let's PLEASE take that fight back to the hackamore page. (I support deletion of riding halter, but could actually care less about the outcome.). Frankly, this thing is getting quite nasty, I feel I am being personally attacked by Una on my talk page, Una did so because she thinks I am being mean to her, and my personal opinion is that the other members of wiki project equine may want to come over to the sandbox because there may be a need for adult intervention. igh... Montanabw(talk)20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Disambiguation solution
Things at the bitless articles may be calming down a little bit (pardon the pun), but mulling over Una's comments about variations in usage of the word "hackamore" and the potential for confusion, I did decide that that some type of overall list would be a good idea, and felt it would work to use the simplest solution possible. So, rather than trash the hackamore article, I put in a simple "otheruses" tag and created Hackamore (disambiguation). May need more article sthere than I listed, see what you think. Montanabw(talk)04:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
In my neck of the woods, it's "those string things that dangle from the browband!" LOL! That's one I don't know, here we don't use them, In the context of the stock horse tradition, I've seen them mostly on photos of horses in Mexico and points south. Then there are those cute little knitted deelie-bobs that the H/J crowd puts over the ears and forehead of their jumpers, can't find a catelogue handy to look them up -- "fly bonnet," maybe? Best to use all the names if there are multiple ones, alphabetize if no obvious favorite. Montanabw(talk)05:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I am casting here for more names; who knows, there might already be an article or two about these things on Wikipedia already. --Una Smith (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Entirely possible, I merged three different articles on the Pottock at one point. There are at least three on Monty Roberts, and they contradict each other. I see you found my fly mask article...someone found the photo,thought it was a blindfold... If you speak Spanish, maybe see what's in the equivalent of our horse tack category in Sp. Wikipedia?? Montanabw(talk)08:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Precipitation (horse)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Precipitation (horse), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Precipitation (horse). Zab (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
While working on the Thoroughbred article in its push to GA, I got the idea that it might be a good idea to set up some sort of guildline for the layout of breed articles, so we have a framework of things that need to be included and a suggested format for the information. Anyone have any ideas on this? Ealdgyth | Talk21:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
If we can make it easier to find, that would be good, though know that I did a TON of work on that outline, someone else started it, but I worked on it a year ago with a bunch with some other people who aren't here any more, and then did more cleanup when we were tagging the breed articles. The project is now officially a task force instead, I don't know how to make it easier to find -- maybe look at how it is linked off of the WPEQ main page??? Montanabw(talk)02:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't help myself and made one for "Fabulous" Fadjur; This page lists some of his achievements, but not being familiar with american terms, can someone translate these better and provide official refs (of which there must be some)? Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth and I will work with you as needed, if you create any new articles, just give one of us a shout and we will do a look over. Probably Nazeer is the next Arabian in line for his own article. Montanabw(talk)05:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Montanabw wants a photo of a white horse; a nice one is here on Tabblo; if someone cares to join Tabblo, they can ask the contributor there about licensing it for use on Wikipedia. (PS to Montanabw: I have seen more white horses than cremellos.) --Una Smith (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Una, I appreciate it. And actually it's White (horse), ironically there are many pubs with that name, the obvious goes to a disambig...sigh. That horse could be cremello, my dialup is so slow that only the lead image loaded, and the horse looks like it has a faint yellow tone, but could be my computer. I'll look at the rest soon. Good spotting some images! The SB1 gene Sabino whites aren't as uncommon as the "dominant whites" (which some people claims doesn't exist, though the Mau study seems pretty firm that dominant whites are not just maximum Sabinos, but I digress), and there are those TB and TWH bloodlines that have a bunch of 'em , though most whites I have seen aren't completely white, usually a bit mottled. But out here cremellos are not uncommon, palomino and buckskin being "fashionable" and all; one in four chance of a double dilute every mating. Ah, interesting. Ironically, I'm not really a huge fan of white horses, prefer grays. Actually prefer bays, but a good horse is never a bad color (though pink-skinned horses CAN sunburn out here, at least on the face, some overos and baldfaced horses even have trouble, probably why we don't see a lot of them.). But I digess. My point is, thanks for the locate, will check more later. Montanabw(talk)02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I just changed the White horse redirect to White (horse), and added a hatnote to the dab page at White Horse (disambiguation). A horse that is white is the most likely what someone is looking for when they enter "white horse." All other items named "white horse" are named after horses that are white, so the new redirects are the most logical situation. --Scott Alter02:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Top articles
So, what are some top-importance articles within the scope of this project?
Ah! You saw that I reassessed horse slaughter from "top" to "high." Not a cosmic issue if you really want to change it back, but here's my reasoning: I wouldn't put horse slaughter as top, mostly because it's primarily a hot issue in the USA, and, to some extent, in Canada; no worldwide focus (FYI, I personally oppose horsemeat slaughter for human consumption, but I also know the unwanted horse problem is a no-win situation). I would argue that the diseases that lead people to can horses (like laminitis) and things like the PMU inustry (which produces foals sold as horsemeat as a "byproduct" of the mares) are of equal or greater importance.
What is the criterion for "top?" (I know, there is the official version, but what's the WPEQ consensus?) That is the first question. I would pick articles like horse, [[equestrianism], horse tack (maybe), horse management, horse conformation, horse breeding etc. -- the basic information articles from which all the rest stem. My opinion of course. The horse breeds list would be a maybe, maybe not. Certainly its something people are interested in as a general topic. Personally I would not pick transitory hot topic or controversial articles, IMHO. I would be concerned about soapbox issues.
I think the major disease articles - colic, laminitis, etc. could all be high importance, but not "top," with the possible exception of horse colic which is the #1 killer of horses. If we wanted to look at what the hottest topic is at the moment, the equine influenza outbreak in Australia sort of riveted the world's attention. WNV was a concern, but the vaccines now are pretty good and relatively speaking, it's not killing that many horses. EIA is sort of one of those "all the time but low level worry" issues that just nags at the back of the head, more significant in some parts of the world than others.
So, guess my thinking is to define more precisely what we all mean by "top." To me, "the issue that gets people the most upset" isn't a criterion. JMO, however. Montanabw(talk)02:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I figure we need to cover the top level stuff. I can see list of horse breeds in there or as a high level, either way. Ealdgyth | Talk02:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
E, you are the assessment goddess, if you want to designate the "for sure" ones as "top," I won't complain. Consider adding horse care, which links (or should) to nutrition, vaccinations, worming, grooming, hoof care, etc. The "maybes" can be debated, I'm not thinking all that many articles should be "top". Hmm. Red links. Do we really NEED a "horses in history" when we have the domestication and warfare articles? I suppose farming is missing...but... Montanabw(talk)03:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
On Wikipedia top importance is what we expect readers most want to read about. So I am thinking of what I most want to read about, and of the questions non-horsey people ask me. I would add:
something general about horse sexes, explaining male, female, gelding vs stud, castration, spaying; what's between their legs and under their tails (this is a burning interest among little kids; mules etc.)
Colic merits top importance because every child who reads horse stories knows horses can "get" colic and die ... but beyond that their information is scant.
I am just back from vacation so brain may not be working up to speed yet.... After an initial review of this topic, I would say that I think two types of article would rate as Top; basic info articles like Horse, Zebra, Mule, etc. plus the so-called 'hot topics' like Horse Slaughter, EIA, etc. So, my preliminary vote would be:
Top:
Horse
Zebra
Mule, etc
Horse Slaughter
Equine Infectious Anemia
West Nile Virus
Colic, etc.
but not:
Evolution of the horse
Horse anatomy
Domestication of the horse
Horse breeding, etc.
which I think are "further reading" articles that could be listed is 'high.' But I reserve the right to alter my vote here once I get 'back in the saddle.' --AeronM (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, some good food for thought. By the way there is draft horse and working animal, in case you hadn't found those yet. horse breeding as well as mare (horse). stallion and gelding all have articles, but top? I don't know -- the basic terminology and links should all be in the main horse article, which is, of course, Top of the top. (No objection to mule, though) To me "high" is really the main asessment for most reasonably important articles. Top is sort of icing on the cake. Absent polling or something, "what people want to read" is just our opinions. Lots of people ask me about laminitis, for example. Some people would say American Quarter Horse should be "top." However, Cowboy is not of "top" importance in WPEQ, in part because cowboys were cattle handlers on horseback, the hardcore horsemen of the cowboy tradition were specialists within the tradition. Maybe they could rank pretty high in WP ag or something, but Equestrianism can have a link to cowboys, but it would be the top article, not the cowboy one. JMO, but really, I also am finding it hard to really care. How about we just refine the criteria rather than laundry listing articles? We have the general wiki guidelines for stub, start, B, etc quality, is there something on importance rankings in general? That should be where we start. Montanabw(talk)07:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Need
The article's priority or importance, regardless of its quality
Re Horse including all relevant terminology, that's "cruft". That article, and many others within this project rated Top or High, are loaded with content that in my opinion belongs in a Mid or Low importance article. Even worse, these Top and High importance articles duplicate content of Mid and Low importance articles. --Una Smith (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm heading out of town for this week and next (Horse show and a couple of clients have babies on the ground so time to start earning some money) so I'll have to wait to continue this conversation until I get home. Be good while I'm gone! Might I suggest dropping notes on John Carter's, Doug's, Dana Boomer's, Aeron's, Curtis', Countercanter, Eventer's and anyone else who has contributed to horse articles to solicit more opinions? Ealdgyth - Talk15:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
In general, I tend to think that the main article on the subject, in this case Horse, and those articles which are linked to as "see also" pages from that article should all be included as top-importance, as those articles are directly linked to from the main one. Maybe in this case, at least all the articles in the Template:Equidae would prbably be included. Some of the extant links in the main article might be reasonably substituted if they link to to obscure a subject. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)What about Donkey then..if mule is top importance....I am not too fussed about importance tags overall. I too was wondering why not list of horse breeds, just thinking of Arabians, Palominos and Appaloosa's as three areas where there is a huge preoccupation with definition. Actually, that should be a straightforward Featured List Candidate..Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Throwing in my two cents... I would pretty much agree with Ealdgyth's list above. The horse/zebra/etc ones should definitely be top, and then the articles that everything else branches from. To be completely honest, I don't think all that many people who are reading the articles for information look at how important various projects feel the article is. Stemming from that thought, there is much that needs to be done that is (IMHO) much more important than arguing endlessly over what "importance" we're going to place on an article. If people are really looking for something to do, might I suggest looking at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Articles Needing Cleanup page for articles that need serious attention and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Featured and Good articles page for articles that should be high priority for FA/GA? Dana boomer (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Una, please re-read my post. I WAS NOT suggesting that the articles listed in the two pages I linked should be given a certain importance level. I WAS suggesting that instead of arguing endlessly over something that is as un-important as the importance rating of articles, everyone here could be productive and actually help Wikipedia by improving one of the articles listed. Dana boomer (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is diverging somewhat to a related topic, the handling of lists. My view is that lists essentially duplicate categories and rather than compiling a list focus on the categories and refer to them in the text of the relevant top articles. --Una Smith (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Ditto to Dana. Let's just drop this, the point is that few articles should be top, a few more "high" a lot of them "mid," etc. All this is really about is that Una is apparently not pleases that I reassessed horse slaughter from Top to High. Sorry the rest of you got dragged into yet another catfight between the two of us. I say, let's just assess the articles, and if it brings peace in the family, then maybe we can just assess everything as "top" and never downgrade anything. Whatever. Sigh. Montanabw(talk)22:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field.
Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article.
Here is another importance scheme used by some projects, where importance relates to notability. The importance tag really doesn't matter to anyone other than editors, as it is only used for the project as a tool to improve articles. Editors should have a higher priority to improve higher importance articles. That being said, as a person who knows little about horses, these are my opinions. Most of the articles in {{Equidae}} should be top importance. The broad classification of equidae (horse, zebra, donkey) should be top. Mule should also be top. The other hybrids and extinct species should be high or mid. The individual breeds should be high or mid, with list of horse breeds as high. And I do not think cowboy is that important to this project - it definitely should not be top. --Scott Alter01:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Cowboy is very limited in POV; to make it NPOV, it would have to include men who manage cattle on horseback in Spain, Central and South America, and Australia. Were they included, Cowboy might indeed have international notability. --Una Smith (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Gaucho should cover South American horseback cattle herders. Not sure on the term in Spain or Central America, it may be the same term, it may not. I have dim memories of Drover being used somewhere in the world too. Ealdgyth - Talk15:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Except, the article on Gaucho covers the culture itself, and the history, which is different in each case. Same with vaquero. The history is different, and the culture surrounding is different. I don't consider a South American cattle herder on horseback the same as a Western United States cattle herder on horseback, and I can't see the reason to merge them. Ealdgyth - Talk16:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been asked for my opinion on the ranking of importance. I would tend to agree with most of Ealdgyth's list at the top, up until zebra anyway. I also agree with Scott Alter that all the living species of equidae should be top. It is useful to see the actual definitions of what top and high mean, although there is still plenty of room for interpretation. I think horse meat is of broader importance, geographically and historically, than horse slaughter and would rank them top & high (or high & mid) respectively. I agree that many of the articles about subjects of major importance are pretty poor, but some time ago I decided to concentrate my attention elsewhere than this project. Best wishes. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I would also agree with Ealdgyth's list of top articles. Controversial articles will lead a lot of editing and potential vandalism as well as POV. Cgoodwin (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I share the general consensus of Ealdgyth, Cgoodwin, Scott and Dana. I have also ceased to care. But if we want to add all the horse handler articles, then perhaps Equestrianism could be top. I don't see a need to bring in all the cowboy articles, as they are as much part of WikiProject Ag or cattle, or whatever as horses. They would be, at most, mid, IMHO. Montanabw(talk)03:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
WPEQ: Articles of unclear notability
Hello,
there are currently 12 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)
I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.
Hi all. Am doing a quick review on the above, first glance is that some are simply stubs where we don't have a lot of info, but could stay as there appears to be at least SOME reference material, (the horse breed in Afghanistan, for example), others may need a prod tag- I'll stick on a tag and see what happens, a few I just have no idea what to do about. Nothing really looks like a candidate for a merge. Montanabw(talk)00:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I was planning on working on them a bit tomorrow - especially trying to find a bit more on the various horse breeds and expanding the references so that we can take the notability tags off. This is a helpful little list I think...wonder if anyone is doing something like this for the other types of tags? Dana boomer (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the merge tags, and put on a tag to make Fouta a main article, merging Fleuve and M'Bayar. Threw on one prod tag (the "registry" that takes PayPal) but I think the Asian horse breeds are worth looking at for expansion. I also realize that the Bonnie Hendricks book is really starting to annoy me...I don't want to buy a copy, but I think it's a "if we heard there might be a breed somewhere, we'll count it..." thing...? As for the tags, I don't know, the template probably does create a master list somewhere, maybe this B.Wolterding who gave us the heads up can help? Want to ask? Montanabw(talk)01:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I just saw that the tags had "]]" instead of "}}" and tweaked them...no big deal. I agree that the Fouta should probably be the main article and that the three could probably do with being merged, and will see what other information I can find on all three tomorrow, as well as the Asian breeds. Also agree on the prod tag for the registry, and have dropped it onto my watch list, so I can jump in if there's a problem with the deletion. I don't really feel like shelling out the money for the Hendricks book either, but she does seem to have a fairly loose standard for a "breed". Oh well, guess we'll just keep dealing with the fallout... I'll drop a quick note to B.Wolterding to see if he knows of any other tag listings. Dana boomer (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
And I tossed the notability tag on the list of Middle-Earth Horses. That's something that could be VERY handy to have around! (smile) Also has a lively edit history and good entries. Sure, the horses are fictional, but its fun. (grin) Montanabw(talk)01:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
What should we do with Black Beauty (Horse)? I admit to confusing the article with the fictional horse in the novel, and for that reason alone, I kind of wonder about it. This was the former smallest horse in the world, prior to Thumbelina. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk)01:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, not really sure. I admit to also confusing this article with the fictional Black Beauty until I actually started reading it. However, we do also have articles on Thumbelina and the either current or former largest horse in the world (can't remember his name right now but know I've read the article), so if one's not notable all of them are probably not notable. I'd say probably keep it, add any additional info we can find and ditch the notability tag...there's not really all that much we can do about what the owners named the horse. Dana boomer (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Help request: GA backlog
Hello. There has been a large backlog at the Good Article Nominations page for a while. Since most of my editing is in the Sports and Recreation category, that is the area that I am currently focusing on. To try to cut down on the backlog, I'm approaching projects with the request that members from that project review two specific articles over the next week. My request to WikiProject Equine is to try to find time to review 2007 Kansas City Chiefs season and Unforgiven (2005). If these are already reviewed by someone else or you have time for another review (or you'd rather review something else altogether), it would be great if you could help out with another article. Of course, this is purely voluntary. If you could help, though, it would help out a lot and be greatly appreciated. The basic instructions for reviewing articles is found at WP:GAN and the criteria is found at WP:WIAGA. I recently began reviewing articles, and I've found it fairly enjoyable and I've learned a lot about how to write high quality articles. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Half chaps
Your input is requested re the question: describe in detail half chaps on both Chaps and Gaiters, or describe in detail only on Gaiters with a reference on Chaps.
FYI, this is yet another editing spat between Una Smith and Montanabw. Una forgot to sign her post. The real issue is if the longer version is a content fork and should be explained fully at the gaiters article ONLY, with the briefest mention at chaps (they are explained in the text of gaiters because the text was moved from the chaps article), versus the position that half chaps, due to name and use, are leather leg wear used when riding, hence should (also? primarily?) be discussed in the chaps article. Hope that explains it neutrally Montanabw(talk)04:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Half chaps are not true chaps, but are actually gaiters for use on horseback. However, in the United Kingdom, they are sometimes called chaps. They provide grip for the rider and protection from the stirrup leather. They are commonly used over the paddock boots of English-style riders in place of tall boots. Some casual western riders occasionally use them instead of regular chaps to add additional protection to the lower leg, particularly in hot weather, but they are not traditional cowboy gear.
Oh for crying out loud, if anyone cares, look at the history. The "first option" reflects my last edit, and it is cut down considerably from what was originally there, per an attempt to respect Una's thought that the section was too long. The "second option" is what Una wants it to say. This is just a spat between a couple of editors, though if anyone cares, feel free to come on over and play.Montanabw(talk)05:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the user who made up this list, there aren't any other lists by project for other administrative tags, although some individual projects may have bots that find the articles with tags (he's not sure on this). Dana boomer (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I know that tagging things as stubs puts them in category:horse stubs, and I think that the work ScottAlter did allows us to peruse articles by category, but beyond that, occasionally SuggestBot picks up the right articles, but it is often outdated (saying something is a stub when the stub tag was removed a month ago. I say if no one else weighs in, merge the three tagged articles. Montanabw(talk)03:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a link to it from the article..... does that mean we have permission? Or are linking to, and including, two different animals? --AeronM (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Check out Drama Riding. IMHO, this is not a notable article, but the prod tag was removed by its creator, who appears to be working quite steadily on the article. However, I think at most it is a POV fork from Hunt seat and needs to be merged. Either that or now we need to have new articles on bad hands, riding with heels up, jerking on the mouth, etc...when will it end? But I have no energy for yet another edit war, so am just giving the rest of the community a heads up. I did the tags, anyone else can deal with the rest of it for now. Montanabw(talk)22:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The article was created by a very new editor; rather than tag and delete, I suggest provide constructive help. --Una Smith (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the article is going to be deleted, from the votes so far. I've voted for deletion, as I agree with Montana that the content in this article is a POV fork, not to mention having no references. It doesn't really matter that it's a new editor...if she wants to work (constructively) on other horse articles, that's fine, but inserting POV on drama riding into multiple articles isn't, IMO, constructive. Dana boomer (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but with a new editor it is often more constructive to help the editor get up to speed here. The editor may then decide to speedy delete the article, and a speedy delete involves far less work by far fewer editors than an AfD. Also, this makes for a more positive experience for all editors involved. More carrot, less stick. --Una Smith (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Opinions were mostly divided between delete and delete/merge, with only a few keeps, so an admin elected to delete the article. I think that is a shame because, as the discussion showed, there was some real content in the article and on the talk page. For the record, merging requires keeping; deleting means that content is gone and not available to be merged into other articles. A deleted article can be undeleted, by an admin, but in that case deleting was a mistake. --Una Smith (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
