Talk:Auxois

Review of Tsaag Valren

Okay, let's go ;)

• Northeastern France for Burgundy... not really. Geographically (?) and Historically Burgundy is in the estern and center. Euuh... don't know if I explain clearly... :D
• False link or disambigua... the disembig-thing : for direct descendant of the Bourguignon => it's Bourguignon horse => redirect to Charolais horse.

I've do myself for the third problem I've seen. Don't know how work your disambig... pages ! --Tsaag Valren (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the check and the edits! Would just "eastern France" work? Also, on the French WP, the Bourguignon horse article redirects to the Charolais horse article - should we do that here? For now, I've just made it a red link to avoid it going to the dab page. Dana boomer (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

For the Bourguignon horse, it's an ancestor for 3 or 4 breeds but thee(='s very fe sources about this horse himself. So in the french wp the chapter about the Bourgnuignon horse is included in the article of the most close-related breed --Tsaag Valren (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've now created a redirect from Bourguignon horse to Charolais horse, fixed the links in both the lead and body of the article, and changed the lead to say "eastern France". Anything I've missed? Dana boomer (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so ;) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Auxois/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 17:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, I really should be doing a school project now, but I'll do this review as procrastination... FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• "They usually have less feathering than other French draft horse breeds." Feathering doesn't seem to be the right article, perhaps one could be created (hint). Could be explained briefly what it is here.

  I will fix the dab, we DO have Feathering (horse). I shall defer to Dana if additional content is needed. --Montanabw

  Nice. Could be specified like "They usually have less feathering on the legs", for unfamiliar readers. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

  Done. Dana boomer (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• "as well as equestrian tourism", this was also unfamiliar to me, might need an article too (hint, hint), but I don't think it would have to be elaborated on here. But is it the same as "recreational riding" mentioned further down?

  You are right that we DO need an article on equestrian tourism (on my list, eventually). "Recreational riding" is more than just equestrian tourism, but equestrian tourism usually does include recreational riding. Does that make sense? -Montanabw

Yup. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The first attempts to create a breed registry in 1903 and 1904 failed." Why was that?

  I don't know. It was probably because there weren't enough people interested or, as it says a couple of sentences later, because some of the officials weren't sure if it should be its own breed. I haven't been able to find specifics, though. Dana boomer (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• "with testing not resuming until 1920" What is "testing"?

• Studbook selection. Clarified. Dana boomer (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• "winning out over the local cattle breed used as oxen" why not mention the name of this breed?

• Done. Dana boomer (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The peak use of the Auxois and French draft horses in general was short" what does "peak use" refer to?

  I think Dana was referring to use as draft horses -- plowhorses -- as stated earlier in the paragraph. Do you have any thoughts on how this could be better stated? --Montanabw

  Something like "The peak use of the Auxois and French draft horses as plowhorses"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

  Peak popularity and usage (basically, when there were the greatest number of people, in this case farmers, using the greatest number of horses). Clarified. Dana boomer (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• "those bred through cloning are not" is cloning of this breed even practised?

  It's clearly enough of a concern to the breeders that the breed registry specifically bans it. See the English translation of the studbook rules Across the horse industry, most breed associations are engaging in a "preemptive strike" and banning clones before they have to be confronted with a "done deal" which could (potentially) legally force them to accept such animals. Rare breeds are at particular vulnerability due to their small numbers and already-limited gene pool. It's a complex issue, but in short the MtDNA of the clone comes from the enucleated egg, not the donor animal, so the result is actually NOT a genetically identical individual. This has profound implications for purebred animals, which is why they ban it (for more as an example, see here) --Montanabw

  Ok. Could it be clarified that it refers to potential cloning? FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

  Tried to clarify. Dana boomer (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In 2001, it was the eighth-smallest of the nine breeds" I guess this means the breed with the eighth smallest population? Should be specified.

• Clarified both in lead and body. Dana boomer (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• So this review mainly consisted of questions, which means the rest was pretty nice. I assume you understand French, since so many of the sources are in the language? FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk. I sometimes pop by Dana's GA noms and offer a bit of help when I can - on these French horse breed articles she's been upgrading, I can offer a fresher set of eyes and provide a perspective from WikiProject Equine (WPEQ) as to certain issues. As to the "understanding French" issue, here there is a collaborator who IS French (Tsaag Varlen) and is helping WPEQ incorporate articles from Fr.wiki to en.wiki. On these rare breeds, there are probably few to no GOOD sources in English, though a few breed encyclopedias can sometimes verify bits and pieces (we have often found, however, that the breed encyclopedias often have superficial or incorrect/outdated material...) There is also Google translate, which I use to verify certain information -- machine translation isn't great, but it's usually enough -- when combined with access to a fluent speaker of the language -- to verify the source. Montanabw^(talk) 18:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, language issue is fine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk, and thanks for the review! I think I've addressed everything above that Montana hadn't. If I missed anything, please let me know! Dana boomer (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for the fixes, looks ready to me now, so I'll pass it. But if you ever come across something that explains why the first breed registry failed, please add. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Tamsin Pickeral (‎2003), Encyclopedia of horses and ponies. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Auxois. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.haras-nationaux.fr/uploads/tx_vm19hnreglementation/reglement_auxois_14novembre2002.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924041646/http://www.haras-nationaux.fr/uploads/tx_dlcubehnshop/trait_auxois_04.pdf to http://www.haras-nationaux.fr/uploads/tx_dlcubehnshop/trait_auxois_04.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)