Talk:Horse/Archive 3

Citation

This article truly does need more verifiability. We need citations. Please try to add a few as you can. Follow wikipedia guidelines, I urge everyone to use the <ref> cited material </ref> and <ref name="source"/> tags so that there is a complete list of footnotes created at the bottom.

Please don't just add good books about horses at the end, add source material we are actually using in the article...some of the books listed are in fact sources, let's use the <ref name="source"/> tag as needed to insert them into footnotes wherever they are used. Thanks! Montanabw 19:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Help with classifying and adding an image

I took a picture of a horse with a covered face, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Image_of_a_horse_with_covered_face. -- PER9000 16:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a FLY MASK. I have no clue why they have it on in the winter when there aren't any flies, but that's what it is. Maybe it is there for some other purpose, but it's actually made of a see-through mesh -- the horse, as you can see from its forward-pricked ears, is obviously looking at something.

Here is an example from a catalogue: http://www.horse-tack-and-equestrian-clothing.com/fly-masks-fringes-masta-fly-mask-prod1688.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 19:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Here are some more examples: http://www.statelinetack.com/global/search/search_results.jsp?Ntt=fly+mask&In=Horse&previousText=fly+mask&N=2050678 Montanabw 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

See Fly mask. /Per —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.15.169.146 (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

How much?

does it cost for one?74.195.9.240 02:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A horse or a fly mask? Horses cost anywhere from "free to a good home" (for a sick or problem horse) to over one hundred million dollars (to syndicate a champion racehorse stallion), depends on the horse. Fly masks can be had for under 20 dollars at any tack store... Montanabw 18:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you know where to look, you can actually have a healthy and sociable (but untrained) horse for nothing or close to nothing. Where I am in Virginia there is a farm where the owner is not surprised to wake up and find a new horse in the pasture, because people don't realize how expensive they are to maintain. She then does her best to adopt them out. horsedreamer 19:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Horses are great to have and are worth the price

Sleeping

Horses can only sleep lie down for about 2 hours Forgive me for knowing virtually nothing about horses, but I tried to find my own information on how horses sleep before looking at Wiki (the horror), and I found some stuff on a 'stay apparatus,' but also some things that said that horses don't always sleep standing up. Since I am 95% ignorant on this, it'd be great to see something added about how horses sleep. 71.49.115.125 02:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been requested a couple of times. I'll see what we can do. Montanabw 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

By popular demand, a section on horses' sleep patterns has been added to the Behavior section of this article. Montanabw 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

more games

Reply to removed comment: please see gymkhana for information on games.Montanabw 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the time horses do sleep while they are standing up, but not always.They can sleep laying down with their legs folded underneath them also. There is a difference with this kind of sleeping and laying on their side with their head on the gorund, that could be a sign of colic. My horse sleeps both ways but some prefer one way or another.

Speed and distance

The info about how fast horses run is great, but I would like to see some data about endurance racing. Specifically, how far can a horse travel in one day, and also day after day, as in the movie "Hidalgo." How many hours can one run in a day? Also, I believe that the pioneers in "flat" country made around 20 miles a day with their conestoga wagons. If true, perhaps that should be mentioned also?

One further question. What is the typical walking speed of a horse?

These questions are answered in detail in the articles horse gait and endurance riding. However, that said, the average horse walks at about 4 mph, and winning endurance riders routinely complete distances of 100 miles in about 12 to 14 hours.

Jumping and defense training

I was checking facts for a science fiction story I'm writing for my Chinese language class (heroine gets out of a tough spot by jumping her horse over a perimeter wall), and found on-line videos of the highest jump ever achieved, 8' 4" (official record 8' 2" because that was the height at the center of the jump). It's a really amazing video, and also an example of the dangers horses are subjected to in competitions.

Humans have jumped almost that high in Olympic competitions, but they don't risk breaking their legs or their spine when they jump because they land in soft foam rubber. They jump higher than they did in years past because they don't have to jump so as to protect themselves on landing. Bones in the legs of the jumping horse (Husao) in the video appear to be curved due to the impact of landing. Fortunately they were not bent to the snapping point.

On another note, entirely hearsay and personal research but interesting, I was talking to a lady who owns an Arabian stallion and she says that if she is in the pasture with the horse and a stranger enters the area her horse will interpose itself between her and the "predator." I've heard of dogs being trained to protect owners, but this is the first time I've heard of a horse doing this kind of thing.

My Arabian mare, on the other hand, once ran to me for protection when the neighbor's horses got loose and came on our property. That was when I had just purchased her and she was really upset about leaving her home herd for the first time in her life, so I thought that was a pretty remarkable indication that she was bonding with me a little.P0M 03:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have jumped 5 foot before. (Anon.)

Eight foot jumps will be pretty rare; seven foot Puissance jumps are not super uncommon,though. Six feet fences usually discourage the average horse. I suspect it has a lot to do with innate hierarchical horse behavior -- based on the horse's perceived position in the herd. I have seen some geldings act protectively, standing between a weaker horse and a stronger one that is being a bully. Horses will identify with non-equines as members of their "herd," including humans--you must have been viewed as the dominant herd member. OTOH, one of my mares chases cats and dogs out of the pasture, for what that's worth. Montanabw 13:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

How about added or making a new article

Take a look at:

Media:Horseevolution.png P0M 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated but interesting, dentition picture Media:Incisivi_Horse-3month.jpg and [[Media::Incisivi_Pferd-6m.jpg]] P0M 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There already is an article evolution of the horse and also horse teeth.Montanabw 23:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Color Calculator for Horses

I found this website, where you can do two different color of horses and learn what their foal will look like! (Example: Buckskin (color) sire + Black (horse) dam= Buckskin, Bay (horse), Smoky Black, Black, Palomino, or Chestnut (coat) foal) Brown is not counted as a color, sadly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.151.77 (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

See Equine coat color genetics and Equine coat color. Brown is genetically indistinguishable (at present) from Bay. There is some allele that acts on the Agouti gene to darken the coat, but they haven't found it yet. Some people call a Liver Chestnut "Brown" too, but technically a "Brown" horse is a dark bay. Some people call them "Black Bays" (which is silly, but I guess it sells horses) Montanabw 23:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

FAC?

Is this article ready to become a FAC. I'd say it is. Buc 09:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

FAC?? Featured article candidate? Not yet,IMHO, too few citations and footnotes. However, I suppose we could kick around putting it up as a GA, those folks usually do a better job of reviewing articles anyway. I've worked on three articles that went GA and the process was a bit daunting. Montanabw 03:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

I have quick-failed this article according to the GA criteria. The main reason for failing the article is for the same reason as Montanabw listed above, lack of inline citations. Entire sections are lacking citations, which needs to be improved on before nominating again. The lead also should better summarize the various sections in the article. The article looks stable, has plenty of images, and covers the broad requirement. Once you have added the inline citations to any statement that a reader may question about its verifiability, then consider renominating again once you look over the criteria again. If you believe that this article is in error, see Wikipedia:Good article review. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. --Nehrams2020 17:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but I agree. It is going to be tough to add citations to existing text, it is much easier to add them as you go, but anyone with suitable books with general information can start plugging them in. Montanabw 22:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

horse and pony cut offs

According to Pony Club standards and some showing standards the cut off for a pony is 14.2hh and a horse is 15 hh and above. There is no record of what a horse/pony standing at 14.3 is.

Your information is incorrect, wherever it comes from. "Pony" Clubs also allow horses to compete. 14.2 is the classic cutoff, always has been. USEF quite clear on that. 15h is not and never has been a horse/pony cutoff, at least not in the USA or, to the best of my knowledge, the UK. Also, many horse breeds have individuals under 14.2 who are still classified as horses. The cutoff for the Western division of the USEF is 14.1. Montanabw 21:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In another note to this, in the hunting scene of Ireland it is not unheard of to describe another "size" of pony/horse. They are called cobs. Although officially in Ireland the cut-off is 14.2h for a pony, this is essentially a pony (although can sometimes be up to about 15h, which could indicate where the confusion is arriving here) which is of a stronger build and thus suited to a lighter adult or female adult rider. Cobs are ideally used a ponies for adults or as driving ponies in the past due to their stronger build and pony-like agility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.80.49.131 (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, about the opposite build from a cob an Arabian, which fits "cob" sized tack in the USA. By the way, there is an article called Cob (horse). Montanabw^(talk) 20:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Pony Club doesn't refer to the size of the animal; in Great Britain, its point of origin, any child's mount can be called a pony. This may have moderated to some degree as the decades pass, but the name remains the same. We were involved with the PC for about 12 years and still have equipment marked LOPC for Lake Oswego Pony Club, as we took kids to a lot of rallies. Think of it as equestrian Little League for the Olympic sports. Regarding the 14.2 cutoff for ponies, that is exactly right. Most show classes do not enforce height, except for pony hunters, which have small, medium and large divisions. This is important because jump spacing is based on length of stride, and a small pony won't make the distances that a large pony will. There are ponies capable of making the stride length of twelve feet that is the standard for horse courses, and these show easily in open classes. We had a medium pony hunter that could nail the distances for a horse with ease.

Class specifications vary, and most breed classes do not have a height standard. In halter classes, mature horses that are obviously undersized may be penalized in the placings, but that depends on how the breed standard is written. Classes under saddle have written standards as well, but it is very rare for someone to question the legality of a competitor based on height, except occasionally in pony hunters. If you challenge the height of a fellow competitor's mount in most Western classes, you'll make a lot of people mad, and there might not even be a measuring stick on hand for disputes. The 14.1 rule exists, but there's fudging going on. There used to be a lot of Arabians in the 14-hand range. Perhaps there still are. The same goes for the Quarter Horses, as some of the old-style horses didn't have a lot of altitude. If one reads the classified ads for almost any light horse breed, almost every horse for sale is 15 hands. They may be the size of a shopping cart when you meet them face to face, but the owner will swear with a straight face that the horse was measured 15 hands.Patroo (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

short summary of the many different horse names?

What do people think about adding a section which defines the many different horse names, such as gelding, pony, colt, mare, stallion etc? Although they are, I think, defined somewhere in the article, it would be helpful to pull it all together in a short section. 07:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It has come and gone over the course of the article. At the moment it's gone and for a reason: Problem is that once the glossary begins, it expands exponentiality, you can't keep it "short." The beauty of wikipedia is that if we remember to faithfully wikilink all the horse terms, a person can actually learn in detail what they mean by going to the appropriate article. Careful use of the "see also" section can also be used to place terms that describe major sections, for example, instead of listing all the parts of the horse here, we can go to horse anatomy. Instead of listing all the foods horses eat here, we can go to equine nutrition, etc...hope this explains what's going on. Montanabw 20:25, 22

Age of horses

I believe there is a mistake in the article. The horses' birthday in the southern hemisphere is August 1 (not July 1)

That's also what I had thought. Comparing Google searches for horses birthday July and horses birthday August reveals convincing evidence to support this. I'll update the article. slieschke 06:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Romania

I believe it is highly offensive to write that Romania is a poor country. This is a fact which has been said on TV in Western World countries for decades, but Romania has improved its economy since then. Besides, not everything said on TV is valid, authentic information. I think a little more research should be done before making such affirmations. The European Union did not consider Romania poor when Romania was accepted as part of the European Union at the beginning of 2007.

So remove the adjective. It is still poorer than, say, England, and the only point here is that horses are still used there for real work.Montanabw^(talk) 19:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no option of editing the article. Indeed, you have a point: it is poorer than other European countries. Anyway, congratulations for all the hard work done on this article. It`s great :)

The article IS semi-protected for people without a login name. (The page gets a lot of vandalism) If you think a change is in order, just pop your suggestion here and one of us can put it in for you (if we think it is a good one.) Montanabw^(talk) 18:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

image selection

I've been doing a rehash of the images in the article, and there was one area where I just couldn't seem to make a decision. I think the current "mares and foals" image needs replacing, and I would like to hear which one of the two following selections people prefer. Thanks VanTucky ^(talk) 20:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• 
  this might be better, as it shows an actual facet of the reproductive chain
• 
  this is just a really well-composed image

I humbly suggest that you are on the verge of overdoing it with this article, though I like most of what you did. I did toss a couple images that were sort of there for the sake of being there, and I really think we need to be super careful adding images of specific modern breeds, keeping it to a minimum, lest everybody and their dog wanting to put in a photo identified as their favorite breed. I think the mare and foal photo in the current article is fine, but these two may be very well placed in the mare article, the running horses as the lead, replacing the photo there (which is the same one here, nice to use different images when we have them) and the one of the nursing foal farther down in an appropriate location. In fact, please oh please do so if you could be so kind. The Friesian photo was cool, but belongs in the Friesian horse article and possibly also in Black (horse) if there seems to be a place to add it. As for the Lipizzan photo you added and I tossed, what was originally in that section was a movie shot from Lord of the Rings, which got tossed because we didn't have the right copyright or fair use tag on it, but I think a movie photo would be better there, or at least, something showing horses actually entertaining people, not just being led to the barn...(smile) Montanabw^(talk) 23:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about preventing every new user wanting to place an image of their horse in the article, I'm an active member of the Dog Wikiproject and we have the same problem. I think however, that making sure most important sections (such as one detailing a unique "use" of horses like in entertainment) has an appropriate image, we can more easily combat claims that the article is in dire need of more images. However, again similar to the dog articles, there is just no getting around showing images of breeds. As long as we make it clear that the reason a particular breed image is where it is, is for a very good reason (such as a draft breed in the cold bloods section) then we can avoid a bias or other problem.

As to the mare image currently in use, it's both poorly composed and vauge. Other than showing mares and foals, what specific attribute of the reproductive cycle does it show? I think we can improve by both choosing a better framed image, and picking one that shows a more specific action. Images not very specific to the adjacent text are often replaced willy-nilly with those of the intention you mentioned previously. But sticking to my own suggestion...the Lipizan image doesn't show a performance, so it isn't absolutely necessary. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the problem is that there are already a number of people working on this article with considerable horse expertise, including Ealdgyth, Eventer, etc., most of whom have access to direct source material (Ealdgyth, thanks for the new footnotes, by the way). For example, a badly-conformed, half-groomed Percheron is hardly a "prime" example of anything, and using a Percheron, though a draft breed, to illustrate a "cold-blooded" breed is not the best, as Percherons are actually one of the livliest and "hottest" of the draft breeds (that being a relative term, they are still pretty mellow and laid back compared to a Thoroughbred). That's where the editing comes in. (Between me, Ealdgyth and Eventer alone, I am sure we easily have a minimum of 80 years of horse experience combined between us, maybe 100! (dunno how old Ealdgyth is--are you old enough to remember vinyl records or black and white TV, the way I do? (grin))

As far as the breed stuff goes, there are times when mentioning breeds cannot be helped, and obviously, every photo in here is of a horse of some breed or another, but there is no real need to identify breeds as such in the photos except where, like the Przewalski's horse, the specific breed itself illustrates some incredibly unique concept. (For example, who cares what breed the horse in the lying down photo happens to be? That doesn't matter there.)

While you are clearly very good at finding some nice images, and I think it was cool that you posted some here on the talk page and asked for comments, and I encourage you to tip us off to some of your new sources, you need to be careful and make this a collaborative process, not being too upset if we go in and tune up your edits. For example, while the photo of the running mares and foals is quite nice, the one in there does (arguably) illustrate the bond between mother and foal, the natural behavior of horses at rest, etc. You say you want more specifics, but weren't you the one who was all grossed out by the castration photo in Gelding? grin). IMHO, the nursing mare image is really more detailed than this particular article needs, and would be best in a more specific article. Remember that we have separate articles on both mares and foals and horse breeding, all of which would benefit from these images and in the process not make the horse article so huge as to constitute a wikibook. (Dozens of horse-related articles have been spun off from horse just in the year and a half or so that I have been a wikipedian).I say let's just leave that one be.

In some cultures the eating of horses may be supported, yet in the United States in 7 states it is illegal to eat them. These states includ Alabama, California, Florida, Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmoore (talk • contribs) 15:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you can find an image of the Budweiser Clydesdales in harness, or a circus performance, or a good horse movie poster (with the appropriate fair use tags so we don't get it dumped like the last one was), I encourage you to add something suitable to the entertainment section, as a suitable, lively and attractive image there IS needed. (Just not a boring one...)

So anyway, I don't want to be too harsh, I just want to explain what's going on here. Help out, but remember that there are people working on here who have a lot of background and access to some really solid source material. Montanabw^(talk) 02:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To verge off topic briefly, I do remember vinyl records, but I was in college when CDs appeared, so that should give you some good idea of my age. My first TV was a Black and White, but by the time I was in college, they were pretty much gone. I've been around horses since I was young, and worked for a while teaching riding .. this isn't to disparage VanTucky at all, by the way, it's merely to answer Montana's questions. I'm not very up on vet stuff at all, just the general stuff any horse owner should know. And I haven't trained a horse myself in years, been too busy with other things. I do, however, have a mania for collecting books, so I tend to add source citations when I can find them. Okay, back to the photo discussion... in which case I like the nursing photo myself. I guess I should dig through the rejects on the last photo shoot and see what might work for wikipedia, huh? June shoot Ealdgyth | Talk 03:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear anything you have to say on content Montanabw, but your personal admonishments are unnecessary, to put it lightly. Stick to contributions, and leave the moralizing towards other contributors out please. I'm not angry, or even mildly annoyed, at having edits mercilessly reedited. That's Wikipedia, and you've been very polite and given plenty of solid reasoning (even if I disagree) for what you have done. On the topic of the Percheron image, I knew that the breed is considered hotter than many other draft breeds. Wasn't it (or at least rumored to have been) infused with some Arab blood? As for the confirmation, you seem to be forgetting a very very important facet to domestic animal articles on Wikipedia. As part of NPOV, we do not under any circumstances reject animals that do not fit a breed standard. We judge images on their photographic quality, not according to a certain perspective's strictures of appearance. As to the mare image, it's not really a big deal. But I don't think the nursing image is not off-topic for the article, nor is it the only nursing image. Far from it, there at least two-three others on Commons. I saw some image of the Anheuser-Busch horses, but none in their "official capacity" so to speak. That section is pretty small though, the one that is more difficult to find an appropriate one for (and which is a larger block of text) is the section the Friesian image was in. Speaking of, the idea that the majority usage of the breed has changed several times isn't controversial at all, much less doubtful. Read the article. But that's neither here nor there. It's not an easy section to pick and image for, so if you have any ideas I'd love to see them. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo shoots for wikipedia are much easier than for the home scrapbook, E. Crop out the telephone pole growing out of your horse's ear and say "hey! That is a GREAT image of the stifle joint!" (grin) Hmm. You remember vinyl, so you gotta be over 30, eh? (grin) I just went through my tack room and took photos of everything that I couldn't find an image of in Commons! Montanabw^(talk) 05:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky, as for moralizing, Fair 'nuff. As for "As part of NPOV, we do not under any circumstances reject animals that do not fit a breed standard, We judge images on their photographic quality, " show me your source on that, haven't seen that one, and sounds a little weird to enforce...if someone puts a well-composed photo of a racing mule in the Thoroughbred article, can we not say that it sure as hell doesn't look like a Thoroughbred?? (Wouldn't be the first time the dog breeds project rules don't fit the horse breeds project needs) I can see the necessity to avoid edit wars (or worse) about minutae of breed standards, but there has to be some room for judgement and consensus of the group...

As for breed stuff, darn near everything has some Arabian blood in it, somewhere--yes, Percherons included. But Friesians aren't really that good of an example, all that has happened there (no matter how the breed afficionados try to spin it) is that modern breeders have been breeding for a lighter, flashier riding horse that will sell for more money in today's market. A trend of the last 50 years or so. Nothing new there, has happened in several breeds, they are breeding many breed for lighter bone and prettier looks, not always a good thing. If you know dogs, look what they did to German Shepherds for awhile, just as an example. Or the split between the "show" Husky and real sled dogs at the Iditarod. As for horse breeds that have changed a lot, usually horse people just call a new body type a new "breed," there aren't many breeds that themselves have morphed all that much, IMHO. A decent progression might be to show a real Thoroughbred-y Thoroughbred in comparison to a very stocky Quarter horse, which was basically made by crossing mutts on Thoroughbreds (truth be told), then selecting for big, powerful butts and cow sense over about the last 100 years. Or maybe some of those old skinny "cayuse" looking horses in the cowboy photos of the late 1800's to a sleek Quarter horse today...one idea, anyhow. OK, I'm writing another book. Sorry, back to editing. Montanabw^(talk) 05:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting the nursing foal image into mare (horse). It is very suitable there. Montanabw^(talk) 05:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

added sexual fulfillment

I added a small section, completely sourced, about the undeniable fact of the (in my opinion, weirdness) of some people. However I think it should be included into the article. An admin brought up a good point, that it might be a bit much...what do you guys think? Donny417 20:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you can already guess my opinion, it's not exactly germaine to the horse article, but certainly fits in the zoophilia or whatever fancy name bestiality has on wikipedia. Generally most humans don't look to horses as the ideal animal for bestiality. In 30 some years with horses, I can't think of any mention of horses as a sexual object for people other than the old chestnut about Catherine the Great. I don't believe it belongs here. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've found sources that state horses have been used by thousands of people since the age of antiquity. Why would your "opinion" out weigh all these sources? Donny417 20:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just my opinion, but the opinion of the folks who write the Dog article, the Cow article, the Cat article, the Sheep article, the Goat article and I'm sure other domesticated species. I just checked the animals I could think of off the top of my head that people make jokes about having sex with. If those articles don't see the need to cover human-animal relations in the main article, I can hardly see why the horse article is needing it. It's not a significant factor in horse human relations, honestly. And we're not trying to censor the story, it has it's own article, and I'm not trying to get rid of the zoophilia or whatever article, although I personally find bestiality to be animal abuse. But Wikipedia isn't censored, so I don't censor it. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you put whatever information relates to zoophilia into Zoophilia. Your proposed addition has no real merit here, and is likely to be more useful for those looking for it, in Zoophilia. Martinp23 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You will not be surprised that I agree with Ealdgyth and Martin on this. Zoophilia has its own article. It covers the topic thoroughly. What we are describing are human behavioral quirks and your sources all address human decisions and not any propensity of the animals involved. Montanabw^(talk) 21:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Horse are the Best

Horses are the best of all animals. They can be black, white, roan (red or blue) gray, and multicolored. Their eyes are brown unless they are an albino, then their eyes are blue. The bottom of their foot is called a frog and it peels off several times a year.

By Hannah Clay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.142.12 (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, there are no true albino horses, it's a lethal gene. Blue eyed horses with pink skin and a white hair coat are called "white", brown-eyed horses with dark skin are actually grays. Montanabw^(talk) 16:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also a note: Some horses with a double dilution gene, which do look white, called cremello [a double dilution of chestnut] and perlino [a double dilution of bay]have green or hazel eyes. Along with this are horses with the champagne gene. Champagnes usually have hazel eyes.

--ScorpioTongue —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScorpioTongue (talk • contribs) 14:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see dilution gene, cremello, perlino and champagne gene for more information. You may also be interested in silver dapple gene. For that matter, see also White (horse) and Gray (horse). We also have an overview article called equine coat color. Montanabw^(talk) 03:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No merger

I tossed the merge tag on respiratory system of the horse for two compelling reasons: First off, this main Horse article is already very, very long. Second, the horse anatomy article was broken out from this one per wiki guidelines quite some time back. Third, the respiratory system article (and circulatory system, and skeletal system and muscular system AND equine vision) was broken out from the horse anatomy article because it also was also getting very long. In short, wiki guidelines suggest that complex articles do better when relevant sections are broken out into new articles. The last thing the Horse article needs is stuff merged back into it! That said, I did add more wikilinks and see also headings to help people find these articles more easily and did a little bit of rearranging of some sections so that they were more logically placed instead of being a mishmash. Montanabw^(talk) 16:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

How many in horse genus?

In the Odd-toed ungulates article it states that there are 9 species in the Equidae family whereas in the Horse article it states that there are ten. I'm not sure which is correct, otherwise I would have amended it myself.

Joey 23:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, I don't have much background in taxonomy, that is a very good question and it would be good to have both articles contain the correct information. I suggest matching horse to equidae, and anyone who disagrees can fix both articles with a source. Go ahead and make the fix if you'd like. Montanabw^(talk) 03:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need Tree of Life's banner?

This is one of several articles that has a WikiProject Tree of Life banner in addition to the WikiProject Mammals banner. Is this really necessary?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've removed it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what to think on that one, maybe ask the tree of life crowd. If mammals is a subsection of tree of life, then I'd agree. If it's a different deal, them maybe restore it. Beats me, these projects seem to just sort of hang out there wich much discussion and little actual article improvement, IMHO. (Says the very cynical "leader" of WikiProject Horse training). Montanabw^(talk) 18:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Tree of Life is sort of a "super project", they have the basic templates for taxoboxes and have developed colors for the different Kindoms and Phyla, etc., among other things. My understanding is that most of the editing is done by the sub projects which go down, down, down through several layers just to get to Mammals, Birds, etc. I was bold and removed it. Overtagging is a problem though, you don't want to scroll down just to get to the TOC. If someone thinks it needs to be here, they can put it back, though I think a duplicative tag like that would deserve discussion.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Cutural Differences

In some cultures the eating of horses is introduced as a delicasy, but in the United States it is illegal to eat horse in 7 states. These include Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Oklahoma, South Carolina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmoore (talk • contribs) 16:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The ancient Celts did not eat horse meat, horses were sacred to them. http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodireland.html - Culnacréann 00:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Can this conversation just move to the horsemeat article? Montanabw^(talk) 17:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

unsatisfactory

This article is a link farm (we do speak English, and don't need links to common words) and contains numerous breaches of the MOS.

Can someone do the honours and clean it up? Tony (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of those common words are used in a different manner with horses. Hands does not mean the appendage, but is rather a distance. Many of the links go to more specialised horse/agriculture articles. I can see some things that might not need to be linked, maybe Southern Hemisphere and Northern Hemisphere, and some other things like that, especially in the lede. There is a lot of piping going on with the links, for example the link to nutrition links to an article dealing specifically with equine nutrition. Perhaps you could explain what is wrong with the MOS issues? Unfortunately, I usually work with stubs, so I'm not the best person to be mucking about with the MOS issues. I'll make a pass through on the more obvious common words. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, found some stuff on MOS and wikilinks. but still, let's not panic. "Numerous breaches" is not terribly helpful, I really think the article is following the manual of style pretty closely. It isn't perfect, in fact it DOES need a lot of work as far as style and organization, at least in places, but it's 99% better than it was a year ago. Tony, your comment suggests some sort of fundamental errors. It would be nice to have a few specifics we can look at. That is, if you are actually trying to help us out here. Montanabw^(talk) 06:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

For sandbox purposes, here's the wikilink guideline. And can you really "breach" a "guideline"? I think not, you can merely just look tacky. Heavens knows this article needs help, but it is going to take a while. Montanabw^(talk) 06:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Overlinking_and_underlinking:_what's_the_best_ratio? )My emphasis added)

Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio? On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true: More than 10% of the words are contained in links; There are links to articles that are not likely to exist or if they did would have little significance in the context of the article; Low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century (this excludes special date formatting, see below); Two links are next to each other in the text, so that it looks like one link — such as internal links; A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article, as in the example of overlinking that follows: "Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph, because in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly appear needlessly on the viewer's screen. Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information; However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate (but see the exception about dates, below). Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection. Thus, if an important technical term appears many times in a long article, but is only linked once at the very beginning of the article, it may actually be underlinked. But take care in fixing such problems. If an editor finds themselves "reflexively" linking a term without having a good look around the entire article, it is often time to stop and reconsider.

Proposed general "Horse" WikiProject

There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Horses for a project which would deal with all articles related to horses. It would however primarily limit itself to those articles which are not currently within the scope of any other active project. Anyone who might be interested in seeing such a project become a reality should indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter 20:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone else created Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine and did quite a bit of work on it. I've joined it, trying to improve it but I haven't worked on Category creation much, give it a look-see and see what can be done to improve it. Montanabw^(talk) 08:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead image

I have an objection, which is why I changed it. By comparison, the original lead image is very small and of poor composition. The color collision of the original lead's backgroung makes it much harder to see, and the image I switched to is a Quality Image from Commons. Simply maintaining the status quo is not a reason for retaining content. Consensus can change on any issue, and I am unsatisfied with the current lead. If you have a reason why the new image I chose is unsuitable, I'd be willing to hear it. But reverting just to avoid change for its own sake is unacceptable. VanTucky ^talk 07:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• 
  The stable image currently leading article
• 
  The one you added that was reverted

OK, you apparently didn't read my ENTIRE edit summary. And your edit summary said something entirely different from what you said here. So, let me explain why the existing image has been stable for over a year and why it is superior to the one you replaced it with:

This is a "quality image" in commons too, but we wouldn't use it for the lead here, given the angle, eh?

1. What "color collision? One gray horse in a pasture against another gray horse in a pasture??
2. The image you inserted (and I reverted) is misnamed as a "white" horse when it is obviously a dapple gray. That alone could mislead people and thus defeats the educational purpose of wikipedia.
3. The horse in your image looks like a friendly horse, but is poorly conformed in the front legs, it toes out. In fact, it looks like it also has offset cannons and may be slightly knock-kneed, all things that lead to lameness. You cannot see its feet at all, hidden in the grass. It is also somewhat pig-eyed and stands too close behind
4. The horse is ungroomed
5. A 3/4 or greater frontal image is less illustrative of an animal that a full side shot (and the shot shows how bad those front legs are)
6. A photo of a horse standing still is less demonstrative of the nature of horses than a well-done photo of an animal in motion
7. the "quality image" tag on Commons is a general photograph quality tag, having nothing to do with the representative quality of the animal in the shot. And relatively little to do with the composition of the shot
8. The blue bucket or tub in the background is distracting
9. The image size as it appears on the page is scaled for an infobox, in fact, the stable image on commons is LARGER than the one you used, and at only 200 or 300 px wide, both are perfectly adequate for an infobox. That's just a bogus argument.
10. Your edit summary commented on the breed of horse being identifiable and your desire to replace with more of a "generic" image. While an admirable goal, imagine doing that for dog--I mean, the image of the dog leading that article at the moment possesses clear breed characteristics, whether it is actually a purebred animal or not. The only way to hide some breed characteristics is to use an image of an ill-bred mongrel.
11. The animal in the stable image has excellent general conformation and the photo clearly shows it. (If I were to nitpick, I'd say I'd like to see the hocks set down a bit lower and the animal is a touch long in the back, but not excessive for a gaited horse. The neck is a little heavy, but it's a stallion, and again, not atypical). Overall, it's a nice quality animal.
12. And yet, you wouldn't know its breed immediately unless you looked up the photo. (You might say, "hmm, some kind of muscular Spanish-type horse, wonder which breed?")
13. Further, while the horse is identified by breed on its image page and image name, the animal is also a member of a lesser-known breed in the USA (or anywhere in the English-speaking world) and as such doesn't stand out as being obviously part of any faction, that fact alone probably contributes to its stability. If the lead was any common breed in the USA, afficionados of various breeds would (and used to) be swapping photos to promote their favorite type constantly.

Hope this helps. If you actually find a truly better image, that is fine. But the one you added was not. My primary gripe with the existing image is that they did an amateur job of photoshopping some of the background to blur it, not a fatal error on an image intended to showcase an animal. Now, Merry Christmas and all that. Montanabw^(talk) 08:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

the image shown on artical is not true for the image in which they call a horse galloping is wrong. thet horse is cantering. thet gate has 3 beats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.38.198 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC) ...