Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine

Index · Statistics · Log

Equine articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	1	1	8	26			36
FL				4			4
FM					8		8
A		1					1
GA	3	2	17	80		1	103
B	4	13	32	115		72	236
C	4	10	58	536		21	629
Start		25	90	1,953		50	2,118
Stub		2	6	2,877	20	41	2,946
List		1	12	82		6	101
Category				4	1,636		1,640
Disambig				1	22		23
File					10		10
Portal					1		1
Project					20		20
Redirect			3	82	121		206
Template					205		205
NA				1	1		2
Other					8		8
Assessed	12	55	226	5,761	2,052	191	8,297
Unassessed				3		55	58
Total	12	55	226	5,764	2,052	246	8,355
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 31,577			Ω = 5.22

Next up

Well, Thoroughbred has its Peer Review, and with a bit of touchups and some new info I just turned up, should be ready for FAC within the week. Now the question is... what next? We should probably get Horse up to at least GA status. Others that are A class or GA class are: Domestication of the horse, Gelding, Appaloosa, Arabian horse, Equine nutrition, Horses in the Middle Ages, & Horses in warfare.

B class articles that might be worth pushing up (I'm sure there are others, these would be my choice): American Quarter Horse, Equestrianism, Evolution of the horse, Horse behavior, Horse gait, Morgan horse, Przewalski's Horse, Saddle, & Xenophon.

Any other suggestions? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the amount of work that goes into an FA, I'm all for moving more stuff up to GA. I think that continuing to tune up Horse for GA and ultimately FA is probably one priority. BTW, anyone notice that Lion was the featured article on the main page today? Should we check it out for any ideas? As for other ideas, Gelding is really just about ready for GA (I actually think it already IS ready for a nomination, though I suppose it could always get tweaked some more). We may want to ask Countercanter if she'd like us to take on warmblood or one of her warmblood breed articles -- she's done such good, hard work on those! Also, a while back, someone who was pretty knowlegable helped me work on Domestication of the horse, adding some really good research sources and info, and so it might be within spitting distance of GA faster than Evolution or some of the others.

As for my favs, I'd be all for tackling the Quarter Horse article as our next breed article because I think we have the best pool of mutual expertise for that one. I think Equestrianism is a disaster that may be on we want to nibble on in small chunks over time. Morgan has someone mad at me because I deleted their stuff and I'd prefer to wait until that is settled out (I don't know enough about the politics of the "Old type" Morgan-versus-glorified-Saddlebred- spat to really take it on, I only know the spat exists). We also don't have enough good Morgan photos. My vote is to work on Quarter Horse and Gelding. Xenophon would be fun, though a long ways to go. Saddle could also be fun.

I know that Przewalski's gets a lot of spats over taxonomy, and I'd like to get someone with some sort of zoological knowledge on board with us for that one, and likewise for the Evolution article...if we can recruit a scientist source (maybe Getwood can help? or some of the wikiproject veterinary med people?). I think horse gait may still be a little politically touchy right now, I'd let it settle as in a few more weeks we might be sure it's quieted down. There are also some organizational questions, like if we want to unify the titles for the individual gait articles, if we want to add the gallop stuff to the canter article and rename that, if we want to look at the whole "family" of gait-related articles (Maybe work on the category??) So that's my two bits. Montanabw^(talk) 05:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm in favor of the QH and Arabian breed articles going up soon, since my background is in those breeds. I like the idea of a warmblood too, but really should go with the plain Warmblood article, I think. Err, we do have one, right? I'm trying to figure out what books I need to take with me when I head out Monday for a month. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

QH will be, I think, the easiest one to tune up to GA status. Quick and satisfying. (Knocking on wood) We do have warmblood. It's very weak on citation, though, it's more a launching pad to all the other breed articles (Warmbloods are a "type" not really a "Breed") and I would definitely get Countercanter's "blessing" before we go in (says the person who mercilessly edits her stuff all the time, (oops) but she has really earned my respect with her depth knowledge on warmbloods! - and by the way, she's sharp on genetics, too). She has actually done more work on Heavy warmblood (which has some fascinating history.

For Arabian Horse to go from GA up to FA, we (probably me because I was the one who didn't do it right the first time) need to do page numbers for the dozens of refs to Gladys Brown Edwards and Peter Upton's books. Now, if you have either a copy of GBE or Upton and WANT to do some of that, I certainly won't kick (grin), (FYI, you usually ref the 1980 edition of GBE, I have the 1973, so page numbering for GBE may need to be to only one or the other unless there is different material in each, also, I have Upton in paperback, but there is also a hardcover edition) but seeing as how it was me who did it wrong, I sort of do feel like I need to fix it, though I admit that I haven't made any motions to do so... and I loathe those citation templates (since I had that detached retina surgery last September, {, [, and | all look almost the same to me and with my penchant for typos on top of it, it takes me five times as long to use the template as to just use the ref tags. Yes, I know, I'm whining...) I'm also a little nervous that the length will be an issue and that non-horse people will challenge some of the controversies stuff, even though its presence happens to have prompted AHA to put a section on genetic diseases on its web site -- citing wiki! (LOL) Montanabw^(talk) 03:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheat on the refs, follow what I did with Easy Jet, where the cite templates are only used once, and you use short refs with the ref tags in the article itself. Lots easier. I think we did that with Thoroughbred too. But, I'll pack up the QH books, I don't own Upton, I have GBE, and Borden and the Annotated Quest, and Arabian Exodus, Archer's Arabian Horse, Burt's Winning with Arabian Horses, Raswan's Drinkers of the Wind, the AK volumes, a bunch of history articles from back issues of the Khamsat and Arabian Visions, Conn's Arabian Horse in America and a few others, I think. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll fix all the Upton refs then (arrgh, page numbers, page numbers) I have Burt, Wentworth, that new one on showing, the AHW bio of GBE and some others. Between you and I, we probably have all the big ones (Do you have WR Brown? I don't and the local library tossed their copy at some book sale! DOH!). I don't have AK, but I DO have the Raswan Index (not that it will help here much). Your assessment of sources overall will be valued, as always. What fun! Montanabw^(talk) 03:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I completely missed that this discussion was going on *grin*! Just to throw in my two cents... It would be great to get a couple of articles up to FA, and some more up to GA. Appaloosa and especially Thoroughbred are probably our best bets for FA at the moment, since they've become GA the most recently and have all up-to-date information and the citations are all nice and proper!

Arabian would also be good...but the citations really need some work... In just the quick look I took through the page, it looks like no citation templates are used and many of the website citations have no information besides a hyperlinked title.

Horse would be great to get up to GA and eventually FA. It looks a lot better than it did a couple of months ago, but still needs quite a bit of work. Gelding looks to have quite a few fact tags thrown into it and the references need templating and more information, but with all the work that was done on it a while ago it should be fairly close to ready for GA. The Quarter Horse article looks like it mainly needs work on referencing (both adding references and making sure all of the info is there on the existing ones). As a side note - I really don't like the lead picture in the QH article - although this may be more of a personal bias since I tend to go more for the leaner, quicker, cutting type, rather than the halter type.

Like I said, just my two cents. I can start working on references in these various articles over the next few weeks. I should start having some more time soon (famous last words) that can be devoted to this. Let's see if we can get all the references up to Ealdgyth's eagle-eye FAC reviewer's standards! Dana boomer (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

On another side note, how did Lion get to be FA? It's got at least three citation needed/unreliable source tags and the reference style is all over the place...not exactly an example of WP's most shining work... (and that's just what I saw in a 30 second glance over.) Dana boomer (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So, as the worker bees in this hive, do we have a consensus to move Thoroughbred to FA and tackle Quarter Horse and Gelding for GA? That sounds managable if that is what we want to do! Ealdgyth? Earth to Ealdgyth?

I don't disagree that there are better Quarter horses out there (the animal isn't set up square, and is butt-high, plus I think the photo was taken in South America, actually), but unfortunately I have not been able to find a good quality color image that is characteristic of the breed in free wiki images. It will suffice for GA, but I wish we could find more and better images. I think Ealdgyth has the source books for that article, but I'm in for wordsmithing and finding stuff that no one has and everyone needs.

I can try to tackle the fact tags on Gelding if others can help with citation templates. And if you want to make suggestions for "more information" on the talk page of that article, I can sure go see if I can rustle up more stuff. Noting there that we want to put it up for GA again may lure in the veterinarians who helped in the past (Getwood will probably lend a hand).

And, ah, dear yes, it's true on Arabian, many links are to online articles that are just the titles (like all the internal pages on the AHA web site, for one) and, as the person who probably found 90% of the citations, I admit I hate citation templates, I can't read them when others use them, they are very hard for me to copyedit for typos and it drives me freaking nuts that they are the new standard when WP:CITE still says ref tags are OK. (whining). Yeah, I know I have to suck it up...sigh. If you want to look at the cites to the AHA web site in Arabian and see if you can tweak those, (all with URLs containing "arabianhorses.org" are AHA), that might be a small help -- the cite is going to be pretty authoritative for most of what is cited to it (what more than a breed registry?) but if the format can be improved, I sure wouldn't kick. I say follow your bliss! Montanabw^(talk) 02:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth is on the road (again) (Yes, I really do have a house. I just never see it) Tonight is Arkansas, don't you wish you were me. Luckily, I packed the QH books into the car. (Well, the ones dealing with QH history mostly, the horse ones didn't get packed, didn't have enough space.) If you want a Broodmare shot, I'm going to be with the QH mare for the next month with cameras, we can TRY to get shots. Keep in mind she's a broodmare, not a halter horse. Cutting lines too. I did NOT bring books for the horse and gelding articles, just QH and arabians. (I only had so much room for horse books in with the history books and the other stuff I needed for a month on a Texas ranch).

TB will go up probably Wednesday sometime. I have Hubert Walter up at the moment, but it's doing pretty good and can probably squeak TB in as a co-nom with ... Dana, Montana, and who else am I forgetting? If we co-nom, everyone who helps nom gets to join Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations (grins). So I want to make sure I get everyone. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup listing, feedback

Roughly a month ago, I created a cleanup listing for this WikiProject. I have now updated the list with a new data snapshot of May 24. Also, the list format has slightly changed.

On this occassion, I would like to ask you for feedback about this kind of listings. (I am currently evaluating whether it makes sense to offer them on a larger scale.) Did you find the listing useful for your project work? Does it reasonably lead you to articles that you can clean up? What could be improved about the content or formatting of the list?

Please leave your comments at User talk:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied at his talk page.Dana boomer (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Newbie article, has potential

Hi gang, a new editor created Budweiser Clydesdales. It's a stub, but it IS a fun article idea and worth expanding. Anyone want to help? Montanabw^(talk) 23:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so just had a great time wasting a couple hours expanding the Budweiser Clydesdales article. Had a lot of fun surfing the super bowl commercials to do the bad thing and add an external links section. LOL! The rest of you may want to proof and tweak. And see if you can find MORE commercials (missing 2004). You do have to check out the streaker sheep ad...really you do... Montanabw^(talk) 20:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, great work Montana! And you really shouldn't point out videos like that when I'm at work...I get weird looks when I almost fall out of my chair laughing *grin*! I'll try to go through it for copyediting later...but you're usually great at that! Nice work on the refs. Dana boomer (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But that was my goal! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks

OK, I've drunk the kool-aid. What do you all want me to work on? What's on the top of the To Do list? Eventer (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Arabian horse is the next up on the platter for FAC. Appaloosa is probably next after that. I think we're pushing up Horse and American Quarter Horse as well as Gelding to GA status if we can. I'm sure there are tons of articles that need help just with sourcing... (Kool-aid, bah. Need Gatorade ... it's 102 here.. blech!) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back! You might also want to take a look at:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Articles Needing Cleanup - This is a listing of articles, created by project members, generally with no cleanup tags, that are important to the project and need significant cleanup work.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Cleanup listing - This is a page generated by an outside user of all pages tagged with cleanup tags that also have the WPEQ tag on the talk page.

• Category:Horse stubs - Many of the horse stub articles.

• Category:Equestrian biography stubs - Stub article on riders.

Along with the ones that Ealdgyth mentioned, these are probably at the top of the list for work. Dana boomer (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eventer! Welcome back! We definitely need more sources and footnotes for horse. One article that I know you were involved with early on that is on the cleanup list is horse tack. You may also want to look at some of the stuff that has happened to bridle, we had a thing with people wanting to add every gee-gaw that occurs anywhere in the world and it's gotten a little messed up. Equine conformation is another. You may want to drop in and say hello to Getwood, who is a vet and has been tweaking the anatomy articles a bunch, s/he's been a gem! (I never am sure of gender on wiki sometimes...). Montanabw^(talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Category cleanup

Hi gang, A new editor went and made a whole bunch of new categories. Most of them were deleted without problem, but the new Quarter Horse cat has generated comment. Can y'all go over here and weigh in on the issue if you care to? Frankly, I really don't care which they keep or toss, but given that the old version has been stable for years, may cause some hiccups. Ealdgyth and Dana, you guys may be particularly interested. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 18:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to toss in that I have read this...but really have no opinion one way or the other. Since this is the only breed category we have (there's no Category:Arabians or Category:Thoroughbreds) there's not much to go off of, so we're really navigating in uncharted territory. I would agree that it probably should be either American Quarter Horse or American Quarter Horses, but I'm really not sure which... Dana boomer (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire! We have about a dozen breed categories. Start at Category:Horse breeds and note the subsections under "famous horses." No consistency to names, but oh my...Arabians, Morgans, Warmbloods, Thoroughbreds, all have separate categories. Maybe these are sort of mis-categorized under Category:Famous horses-but as most go to articles about named horses, it kind of makes some sense, I guess. As Ealdgyth said a few months back "fumigating" the categories is yet another job. I actually think Eventer set a lot of them up originally, but the articles have grown and assorted other categories added, and now it looks like a tangled mess. Maybe we need to create a category task force one of these days and figure out if there is a more efficient way to organize what's there. Montanabw^(talk) 04:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooohhh...my bad. I had looked at the top category, but apparently hadn't gone in deep enough. Hmmm...there really is no consistency, but what there is appears to show that everything is plural (Connemaras, Arabians, Welsh Ponies, etc) rather than singular. I shall go make a post on the category discussion to that effect. Dana boomer (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Horses into wikisource

I began some work into wikisource, since horsemanship old works are mostly interesting. I'm presently working about Equitation (1922) by Henry de Bussigny, and the booklet of John Solomon Rarey The_Modern_Art_of_Taming_Wild_Horses (1858) is ready. I hope that it could a useful idea. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 09:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain Wikisource to us, please? Montanabw^(talk) 05:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource is the exact opposite of wikipedia... it collects only original works (in PD - Public Domain or published under a documented GFDL or similar). It is a repository of articles, magazines, old books - something like a wiki Gutenberg project. The best contents are the original ones - t.i., first digitalizations of sources lacking in the web - but even e-books running online can be imported and rebuilded from the beginning, because quality of wikisource books is really excellent, much higher than other digitalized versions.

Just an example: the right place for On Horsemanship by Xenophon is wikisource, and not wikipedia. It should be moved there.

Since equitation and horsemanship are much more an art than a science, some old works are very valuable and useful today too, IMO.

I guess that any of you is hardly working here... some additional work is far from welcome I guess... ;-) ... nevertheless there's something I can't do: to validate my transciptions of single pages of [:s:Equitation|Equitation]] by de Bussigny. Simply, to go into one of the pages, here the first page of Chapter I, to read it carefully for any mistake, to enter into edit window and to press the green (validate) radio button of "Page status".... a annoying work for anyone, but an interesting work for passionate riders I guess. Equitation is a really interesting book. And wikisource too is interesting by itself! I can't validate my own work: a different, registered wikisource user must do it. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 12:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Couple of images

There are a bunch of free Creative Commons images here, taken at an international competition. I guess there might be some good images of famous horses/riders. JACOPLANE • 2008-06-25 15:06

Equestrian center

Could someone have a look at Equestrian center and see if you think there is any hope for it. Though it looks like a good faith attempt it's horrible at the moment and I think if I attempt to do anything to it I'll just end up turning it into a dic-def... -Hunting dog (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's rather horrifying, bless 'em. I put a prod tag on it. The concept of an "equestrian center" is really too fuzzy and broad for an article. If I was going to do anything with it, I'd redirect it to stable with a note that said, "some very large stables are sometimes called "equestrian centers." LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 03:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)