Jump to content

Talk:Horse/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Intelligant Mammels

Horses are extremely intelligant. Signals can be used on horses for walking,trotting, and gallop. Also some other tricks.

Jcpower (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Horses are better than anything else in the world!:p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.213.88 (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

just a little correction not made clear, horses can sleep quite comfortably in stables once they have been nurchered, or as long as a companian they trust is around them,(if in long care with human, goat donky etc) this is a big deal esp for young children who might take you up exactly! ill read the rest of your article. Horses have been in my family for 5 generations. also modren studies look into BHS examinations of instruction its an official Uk site ran between irl and uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.7.130 (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What still needs to be done:

Well, in our snail-slow progress towards FA, there are still a few tags that need to be worked out. I finally managed to find a source for the colt thing, but that leaves two tags left:

  • The page needed tag in the Ponies section, for the book Ponies in Australia. I don't remember who added this... Done! Cgoodwin (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The reliable source tag in the Assisted learning and therapy section. I honestly think we could just remove this sentence, as it doesn't really add anything except another name, and it seems to be something that's just being promoted by a few places selling it - it's not been described in any magazines/reliable websites AFAIK. Removed Montanabw(talk) 18:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Other stuff to be done:

  • The Evolution/Domestication sections may need to be updated as new research has become/becomes available.
    • Two different types of eyes needed here. I recommend we get some of the most responsible and knowledgable evolution and taxonomy editors to look over the evolution section, (calling Kim, Kevmin and who else??). I am definitely not a taxonomist and there seems to be ongoing drama in the evolution article that I tend to avoid. We also had some major work happen at wild horse, overseen by Kim, that we may want to look at to see if it needs to be incorporated here, or if we did so back when the editing round happened. Montanabw(talk) 19:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that Domestication of the horse article itself is probably our best source if we need to update and refine the domestication section (there was a big edit I babysat that was done a while back by someone with expertise in the field). However, for the "in-between" exact moment and method of domestication stuff (i.e. the four foundations versus single foundation theory) we are going to need one of us (Probably me or Ealdgyth) to actually look at the newest research to figure out what to do... given that we have sources there, (and written by an author who DOES have a PhD in palentology) but they may be outdated, we may have to present this as a "one side says this and the other side says that" section, possibly even spinning off a new article. And Dana: Note the stuff we found for the Lusitano article, we may actually need to incorporate the multiple centers of domestication stuff in. Much new research in the past five years! :-P Montanabw(talk) 19:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The images need an expert to go through and verify that they are actually licensed properly. If no-one minds, I'll drop a note to one of the FAC image experts in the next few days for a thorough run-through.
Go for it, are you calling on Sandy?? Montanabw(talk) 18:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
No, she does mostly MOS stuff, not image licensing (although she'd probably be quite good at it if she was interested). I was going to drop a note to Awadewit, and if she didn't want to do it I'd talk to NuclearWarfare or one of the other common image reviewers at FAC. We've got a lot of images here, so it will probably take quite a bit of time to go through. Dana boomer (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Update: Dropped a note to Awadewit, so we'll see if she has time/interest. Dana boomer (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
We should really prune the pics back a bit. There are probably too many .. the page loads VERY slowly. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I just took out the supposed "FAO" chart. I hadn't looked closely at it before - it was representing horse centers as a percentage of horses in China...very confusing. Since, as you said, the article is already loaded with images, I just removed it, and updated the numbers in the text with a new source that's not in the kids section of the FAO website. Anyways, back on topic - maybe one of the Przewalskis images could go? There's two of them, right next to each other... Dana boomer (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest the mare and foal shot, it doesn't really add that much, the galloping horse animation which better fits at the gait article, one of the Prz's, Mesohippus, and the cavalry charge should be a start to cull some. But, we need something to go in the breed section - let me hunt through Commons... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree we don't need two Prze shots, but other than that, I really don't think there is image overkill, considering the length of the article. Most are suitable and illustrative of the points of the given section. I have no particular attachment to the mare and foal image, though it's rather nice to have a foal image there somewhere, but as long as there are no licensing issues with the other images, I see no real reason to toss them just for the sake of tossing them. (And I was the one who found the cavalry charge one!) We're going to get criticism for the article being long anyway, and I for one prefer to not just roll over and play dead just because someone might whine a little on this particular issue. Montanabw(talk) 00:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
We're having a big discussion over on the FA page about how slow some pages load, and images on big long articles are a problem (so are templates, so we may be adjusting them). The main thing is ... this page takes forever to load, think about someone on dialup. If the image isn't necessary but just "pretty" it's probably best to delete it so we're not straining folks' connections. (the other option is to cut words...) If it doesn't load in a timely manner, they'll just cancel the load (And as for the citation templates, we may have to code some of them by hand to help reduce the load time, we'll see what the discussion says.) A too big article IS a problem, and images are an easy way to cut this back. I know I would never dream of even trying to load this article on my iPhone, it'd choke it. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Ealdgyth on this one. If this article was a FA right now, it would be along the larger ones, see User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics (that page is measured in readable prose, not total kb, btw). Although it would not be the longest one, it still stands at somewhere around 8,000 words, which is on the high end of what's recommended (WP:Article size says a high end of 6-10,000). The general size is also a load issue, as Ealdgyth says above - if it's bad on a dial-up connection in the US, think of what it is on a mobile phone or a dial-up in a third world country! Images and cite templates seem to be two of the largest offenders for boosting kbs, which boost load times. I'm on a fast connection, and the page even takes a while to load for me when it's not cached. Having said this, I'm not sure that all of the images Ealdgyth mentioned need to go. I'm thinking the mare and foal shot and the sleeping shot may be the two best candidates, as they are both in places where the photos are placed rather thickly and they don't illustrate all that much, IMO. Dana boomer (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) If it isn't the longest, I feel comfortable facing that particular battle. That said, I can do a wordsmithing run-through and see if there is verbiage we can cut. I'll let you guys figure out what to do with the citation templates (I always preferred to use plain old ref tags, but I'll help out with the grunt work on whatever you two decide). I saw some things I could easily refine just in tossing the breed subheadings. Feel free to further tweak my efforts. The sleeping shot came on board after several requests for info on if horses always sleep standing up, as does that whole section. I'd prefer to keep a shot of horses sleeping both ways because it appears to be a thing that apparently everyone who reads "those amazing animals" wants to know about horses. (See the archives here for the discussion, we had at least two requests for this). Oh and FYI I AM on a dialup right now, and worse yet, it's 28.8. (OK, so Montana in general isn't the third world, but right now my kid who lives in India at the moment has a faster -- if more unpredictable-- internet connection than I do because Qwest, Inc. won't run a damn DSL line down two miles of country road(:whining:)) I do have the article cached, so it loaded fairly quickly, the images take a bit longer when I've cleared my cache, but frankly the text loads relatively fast, certainly if one is reading it, the text is loaded by the time you get to a given section. Wiki has a lot of far slower pages, including almost all the georgraphy articles with PNG files. I wonder if there's a way the images can be compressed a bit more. I would be OK refining that Equidae template (I never really cared for it in the first place) too. I think the Equine template is a fragile truce and I'd prefer to leave it be. Montanabw(talk) 03:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Err.. I wasn't suggesting removing the sleeping one, so I'm not sure why it's being defended so vigorously. The problem with too many images is that it becomes overkill and people don't look at them, because there are too many. By having less, we emphasize the remaining ones more. I suggested the mare and foal shot, the galloping animation (which if we must have a moving horse animation, trot would make more sense, it's much more of a "horse" gait than gallop, all horses run, and most folks have seen a horse run on the track before), the mesohippus (which doesn't add much to the article on Caballus, really) and the cav charge (which is squeezed in with some others and doesn't have the imact that the other two in that section do.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggested removing the sleeping one, which is why it was being defended, I believe. I suggested it because it's rather crammed in there with a bunch of others, but w/e, it was just a suggestion. I'd agree with the mare and foal shot, and switching the gallop to a trot (it's nice to have an animation in there for the gait section though). I kind of like the mesohippus shot, as it shows essentially where horses came from, and have no real opinion on the cavalry charge one. It doesn't look squeezed on my screens, but there are other images already in the article, so it's not exactly needed. Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I know you two have taken far more articles to GA and FA than I have, but I also personally have issues with the superficiality of FA criteria, which rewards small, noncontroversial, narrowly-targeted articles over those with a broad scope. (I also think that Dana is going through total hell just trying to get her excellent WWI article to GA, another example why I sort of despair of the process). But, if we must cut photos for the sake of cutting photos and load time and for no other reason, (I'm not being snarky at you guys, I'm just feeling snarky in general) I suppose the mares and foals could go (I'll toss it, seems to be the one that consensus wants out), but there also is a really good argument that for article format and style, we COULD one in or around the domestication section. So is there a net gain here? For the animation, one argument for keeping what is there (I'm not all that attached to this argument, am just raising it) is that it clearly shows the gallop has four beats and may reduce the people who constantly are editing this and the gait article to say there are three "gaits" and argue about the split of the canter and gallop. The other problem is that I can't find a Muybridge animation of a trotting horse on commons (there's one of a pacing horse, but that's not a typical gait, there's also a walking draft horse), the one trotting animation is that lovely Andalusian, but it's quirky and jerky when you put in into an article and three times the raw size (though if that's not a problem within an article, only at full size...?) By the way, does the slightly larger image size specified in the tags add to their load time??
  • The Purebreds and registries section may be able to be trimmed, as it is almost fully duplicated in the Horse breeds article.
That article was spun out from this. I'll take a whack at cutting it down, feel free to further refine. Montanabw(talk) 18:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Nice chop job...it looks much better now. As a further thought, what would you all think about removing the sub-sub sections under the Breeds subsection, so that it was all one? This would shorten up the TOC a bit and remove some successive short sections, which reviewers tend to be un-fond of. Dana boomer (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that would help. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
It's a readability issue. I chopped the headings, my only concern is if we get long paragraphs or sections going that make for navigation problems. See what you think. Montanabw(talk) 01:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add stuff to the list. I know we're not ready for FAC in the very near future, but would like to continue moving in that direction, and several of these things have been sitting for months with no action. Dana boomer (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've got a list of articles to pull from U of I when I go next, mainly to do with the domestication/evolution area, which is the one thing that's really needing updating. We probably need to update/improve some refs too. I have alerted Malleus that we'll be calling on him to copyedit at some point, so we've got that covered... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Just remind Malleus that this article is in American English and we don't do too many hyphens! LOL! 19:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ergots, chestnuts, or splint bones: I found the sentence about the ergots, chestnuts, or splint bones a little confusing as these are all different and the chestnuts and splint bones are well above the hoof. Tbs do not always have ergots.Cgoodwin (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, tweaked to remove refs in evolution section to ergots and chestnuts, the "bones" are the splint bones. Overall, there is probably a need for better sourcing throughout that section. Montanabw(talk) 19:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggested shots for breed/domestication section

Pah. I'm not a big fan of any of them. I'll do some more digging and see if I can come up with anything I like better, and then get back to this. Dana boomer (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I can't find anything that I like better, so I guess either image three or four. Thanks for taking the time to dig these up. Dana boomer (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Not the cave image because that's a 10,000+ year old wild horse that got eaten! LOL! I wonder if we can find images of the Kinshasa Sintashta chariot burials or horses as grave goods? That's the earliest physical evidence. The ancient Greek stuff IS way cool, but I wonder if we should go earlier, Egypt or even the Standard of Ur? Montanabw(talk) 03:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Any of these strike anyone's fancy? They are, at least, of older concepts. At least the drawing is, and the map, though a slow loading png file... I like the sketch, from a history geek perspective, but as for pretty on the page, I'll not take a position on that. Montanabw(talk) 19:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I kind of like the chariot spread one. I would say definitely not the burial one, as from what I can see the photo doesn't give an approximate date of burial and so it really could be from like the 1600s or something... Dana boomer (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Um, the sketch may be pretty new, as the discoveries are also, (unless it's from a tomb painting, which I doubt) but the point is that this is the LAYOUT of the early chariot burials (I've seen many versions of this layout in multiple sources, and the name of the location suggests the site. I won't kick if we use the chariot map, but that IS the way the archaeological sites were set up... Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not doubting it's set up the right way, and it most likely is a very old burial. I'm just worried that someone would pop up and ask us how we knew it was an old burial, since the image doesn't say. Ealdgyth, what are your thoughts? I'm thinking either the chariot map or one of the last two that you (Ealdgyth) gave above.

OOOH!

Older, but neat engravings of a bunch of breeds... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way we could replace all three images in the temperaments section with one of these? They show hot bloods, warmbloods and draft breeds altogether, and the photos look cramped in that section anyway. Dana boomer (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea, honestly... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Those are kind of nice. If these have an "all in one image" thing going on, I say yes, one beats three. If the licensing passes review, it also eliminates three images that are giving us licensing questions (though I think we can drop a line to Oda Mari for the Japanese one, which, btw DID pass FA review for the TB article. Oh, and of the two above, the one with the nine horses has the better-looking animals, IMHO. But another thought: If we can agree on three representative images, we could download, crop, merge and upload a "three in one" image as a single one to illustrate that section, sort of like the gal did with the three Tennessee Walker head shots the other day Montanabw(talk) 02:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was looking at the one with nine horses. It has the Arabian for a hot blood, the Oldenburg and Trakehner for warmbloods and the Percheron and Belgian for cold bloods, as well as some pony breeds and the Yorkshire Coach Horse and Anglo-Norman, which I think would have been considered old-time warmbloods. And getting rid of it would rid us of multiple image licensing issues down below. Dana boomer (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Source for us...

PDF file from this issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. YAY! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Plopped it in, it is the journal backing some stuff we only had in a news article. Great! We actually have tweaked those evolution and domestication sections once already, but I took another whack at them, trying to tone down Deb Bennett a bit more and adding some stuff on Iberian domestication we found when Dana was doing up the Lusitano article. Note I have gone through the text once, chopped some stuff -- other than replacing the length I chopped elsewhere by expanding the domestication stuff to fiddle with just the right nuance... :-P Fire away if I did anything dumb. Montanabw(talk) 06:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I am going to give a a try to rewrite the whole section so that it is better readable for the general public and more accurate at the same time. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kim, can you also look over the taxonomy and evolution stuff? Keep in mind that "more readable" and "more accurate" may be mutually exclusive! (LOL). We also need to keep this section as a summary. But take a whack at it. See how I tweaked your edits over on the domestication article. Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Kim, thanks for working on those sections. However, do we really need nine sources for one statement!?!?! (And six for another one?) This really bulks up the size of the article, and even for the most controversial claims you generally don't need more than three or four - and this many only if someone complains or disputes it. Maybe leave the best two or three for each one and move the rest to the talk page, so they can be easily reintroduced if people have issues with the statements in the future? Dana boomer (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure, some of them can be cut out. However, I think I will leave the sections to others from now on. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested image review

There is work to do on the images. :)

  • The image is at the link (the website doesn't have separate pages, so I added directions on how to get to the photo). However, the uploader has already had a couple of images deleted for copyvio and doesn't have anything that proves him to be the guy who took these photos or owns the farm. This may have to go... --DB
  • Oh "thit," try and find an image of a good quality, well-conformed but "generic" horse...anything with a Draft, QH, TB, Arab or whatever is obviously of a particular breed is not ideal and will invite edit wars... that image was stable for SO long... (not arguing, just whining...) Though the lead images in some of the warmblood articles may hold potential, I think either the Hanoverian or Oldenberger or one of those has a nice chestnut. In a crunch, even the Finnhorse might not be a bad choice... Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Horse parts.jpg - Date should include original publication date (1882) and date altered (?). Source (1882 book) is not listed. Author is not listed (from 1882 book). Please make it clear who altered the image, not who uploaded it. License is incorrect, as it derives from the "life of the author plus 70 years", but we don't have the name of the author or his/her death date. Also needs a source for the information added to the diagram.
  • E or D, I have no clue how to do this one...? If we have a problem, I could just take a photo in commons and label it. --BW
  • I found some more information and added it, but don't think it's quite enough. My question is that this Commons page says that "Works published before 1923 are in the public domain", which would make this one PD. I can't find anything on Mannings death, and to be honest I don't think he even owned the copyright (the Hubbard bros did). So, I'm really not sure what to do on this one... Dana boomer (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, material published before 1923 is PD in the US, but there is nothing on the image page explaining where the image was published (information on source book, author, etc.). Information on images needs to be verified and sourced, just like information in articles. Furthermore, if the image was published outside the US, we need to establish PD by other means (e.g. "life of the author plus 70 years"). Awadewit (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, information has now been added on book, author, copyright holder, date, publisher, publishing location and additions to diagram. Does it look OK now, or is more needed? Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I added the new link and the instructions, but thanks for making them more clear! --DB
  • Does this have to be the author's source, or can we just find a book with a skeleton and verify that the diagram is accurate from that source? (If this is an issue, I can take a photo of my Breyer "Anatomy in Motion" model house or something, unless me photographing a copyrighted model is itself a copyvio...sigh) Montanabw(talk) 03:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think this has to be the author's source. I dropped the author a note - he's not that active but maybe we'll get lucky over the next week or so. If not, we may just have to re-do it, or just add a source ourselves if Awadewit agrees with that. --DB
  • Ideally, we would have the source the author worked from, but if that is impossible to obtain, a source that verifies the information in the diagram is all that is really required. Awadewit (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "nice to know" or MUST know? These images are all over the place, not sure what you need here. --MTBW
  • Originally published 1887 by the University of Pennsylvania. This was added to the description - hope it suffices. --DB
  • Added English description. --DB
  • And removed anyways. --DB
  • English description added - Eald
  • But it still doesn't have a source, date or author, and the uploader hasn't been active since 2007. May have to replace this one... --DB
  • Either works for me. The Shire is better-conformed, but the Ardennaise gives us an obscure breed and certainly makes the differences obvious. --BW
  • I like the shire better, because the Ardennaise is half in light half in shadow, so the shot is less nice. It's not like any draft breed is "common" anyway. - EALD
  • Removed. --DB
  • File:Przewalskipferd cologne.jpg - The author and the uploader are not the same person. Please contact the uploader and see why the discrepency exists. If the uploader is not the author of the photo, s/he needs to obtain permission from the author to release the image on Wikipedia under a free license.
  • Lots or Przewalski photos, maybe we can find one with OK licensing. -- MTBW
  • I like the first one. --DB
  • Either OK with me. --BW
  • I've replaced the image with the first one listed here. --DB
  • File:WC07b.JPG - The author and the uploader are not the same person. Please contact the uploader and see why the discrepency exists. If the uploader is not the author of the photo, s/he needs to obtain permission from the author to release the image on Wikipedia under a free license.
  • Gang, we may be able to find a different warmblood photo with correct licensing here --MTBW
  • I like the second one. --DB
  • Where possible, I vote for photos over drawings and paintings, and color over black and white. Thus, my vote is the Beijing Olympics one, the horse is also gorgeous (whereas the B&W animal is sort of ugly) and we know the breed is clearly a warmblood. And it's the Olympics. Though if that engraving flies to replace all three... Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Replaced. --DB
  • File:Charge3.jpg - Link to source is broken, making it impossible to verify the PD license. Also, note that the author and date are missing from the "Summary".
  • Added new link, but it doesn't specify author/date, and the website claims copyright. Perhaps we could replace with one of the harness images? --DB
This one illustrates the warfare section. So we need a military image if we are keeping the illustration in the same section. Color photo is ideal, but that Walers in WWI photo is a nice one that I think passes muster. Or we could go to a medieval image. Don't care deeply. --BW
Replaced. --DB
  • I checked on the site and couldn't find the photo (although I don't speak French either, so may have missed a key link). However, the site claims copyright, and the uploader gives no details about why this image is in the public domain. I couldn't find any other properly licensed farrier/vet photos, but maybe someone else will have better luck. I thought perhaps one of these other ones to go with the "care" motif of the section:
  • File:GrainMix.jpg
  • File:HorsesAndHay.jpg
  • The above two are both my shots, if that will create an issue with someone ( :-P) , but hey, no question on licensing (LOL) --MTBW
  • I vote for the cute foal shot, it solves three things - care (feed, shelter) plus foal plus cute.. what more do we want? - EALD
  • OH, that cute foal shot. I don't really care for it as much as the one we removed, even though it is artistically composed and comical. One argument I could make for the mare with lying down foal is that could do double duty for the sleep section and be an image with a foal in it. (Not terribly attached to the idea, but an idea). I guess I don't hugely care, but for the care section, it is a place where having a human caring for a horse is sort of the point. IMHO. --BW
  • Replaced. --DB
  • I was hoping for a "horse and carriage" shot, as I study a period in which that was the height of sophisticated travel.
  • Not exactly a travel shot, but there are now horses pulling gun carriages in the warfare section. Close enough? :) --DB
  • We're really trying to cut down images instead of adding more, so we've decided not to include a Stubbs painting. Would it lessen your dissapointment at least slightly, Awadewit, to know that Whistlejacket leads off the, admittedly stubby, Horses in art? :) --DB

Let me know if you have any further questions. Awadewit (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of harnessed horses....

IMHO, the best harness images, if we choose to add them, are the modern examples at [{Welsh pony]]. driving (horse) and horse harness. BTW, we COULD throw in a photo of the Budweiser Clydesdales to do double duty to meet the request for a harness photo (not the worst idea in the world, as we have one riding photo) AND to illustrate the entertainment section. But then, weren't we trying to CUT photos? (noogies!) Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe File:Mariah Struts Her Stuff.jpg? Perhaps replacing the cavalry shot, since the licensing is bad on that? I'm not a big fan of any of the above. There are a couple of nice Welsh Pony shots, but none that I could find with the correct licensing. Dana boomer (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Or, as Montana says, do a two-for-one with a harness shot and an entertainment one with File:Anheuser-Busch Clydesdales.jpg or another Budweisers one. This would make the human interaction section really crowded though, so replacing the warfare one wouldn't be able to happen, unless we removed one of the others. (Although we may have to take out the farrier one, so that could be another possibility to go). Dana boomer (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we have any good images of horses pulling cannons or other artillery, do we? That would kill two birds with one stone. Montanabw(talk) 22:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Standardbred

I think that the Standardbred should be mentioned somewhere as the Tb has been mentioned at least 4 times in conjunction with racing, plus many other times. They are also more common than many of the other breeds which have been mentioned here. Standardbred racing is a big sport in at least 3 countries, too.Cgoodwin (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the more we can toss references to specific breeds completely, the better, once the laundry lists start, well, there are 350+ breed articles, sigh... Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The main reason I removed it from the section you added it into, Cgoodwin, is because there are a lot of different breeds who compete in all three types of racing, and so we don't want to get into specifics in that section. Otherwise, as Montana said, it will turn into a laundry list with everyone adding their favorite racing breeds. The reason that Thoroughbreds are mentioned so much in the article is because they are one of the longest-established breeds, have had an influence on many other breeds, and are very well documented, so they make a good example for various things - terminology differences with age, long-established studbooks, hotblood/warmblood terminology, etc. If you have any suggestions on how to cut out some of the breed mentions without losing nuance, we would love to hear them, as we have been long discussing how to trim the article without losing valuable information. Dana boomer (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Standarbreds are one of the oldest established and recorded breeds. They produced the ninth horse worldwide to win $1 million in 1968 (the others were Tbs). They have specially designed training and racetracks. Sb harness racing is very important in at least 5 countries and many millions of dollars is spent and wagered on these horses. Contrast this record with Belgians, Shires, Percherons, Tennessee Walking Horses and Cleveland Bays etc, most of which you would be hard pressed to find, at least in any quantity. In short I have not seen any horse article dismiss the SB so readily. No it is not my favoutite breed, I just admire any good equine. I don’t believe that laundry lists will start as no other breed can match this record.Cgoodwin (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Not even sure what we are discussing. Economics? Sports? Popular breeds? I'm not opposed to including significant stuff, but on the other hand, I really do worry about everyone's favorite breed wanting a say. For example, if we want to discuss sheer raw economic impact, the 10,000 lb gorilla in the horse world is the American Quarter Horse, with several million animals registered, a lawsuit in Texas singlehandedly making the entire horse world roll over and play dead about the practice of producing multiple embryos annually from mares, hiring a horse slaughter advocate as their chief lobbyist, and having managed to basically buy their way into making reining an international sport with the FEI (which kind of made me laugh my ass off, but that's an aside) Yet, I don't really think the QH necessarily needs to be mentioned in the article here, IMHO (other than maybe for holding the 55mph sprint record). Sorry if I'm a little irritable, I'm just trying to figure out what we do and don't need to do here. Montanabw(talk) 03:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Pics...

Okay, let's look at what we've got here:

  • if we replace the four pics in the "temprament" section with File:Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary b35 043-0.jpg which has several things going for it, it's a combo picture, so the differences between breeds are shown right there next to each other, it's older, so it shows that breeds have been around for a while, plus it has some more obscure breeds in it so we're not favouring just the "popular" breeds, and it replaces four images with one.. Against it, it's not a photograph.
    Yes, I agree --BW
  • Remove the mare and foal from up towards the top and replace the farrier pic with the cute foal eating pic, which shows a foal, care, is cute, and is properly lisenced for FA
    I really would prefer not to toss the farrier if we can fix it...and if we can't to have some other "horse care" image, another farrier or a vet or something. --BW
  • Replace the white dressage horse with the Bejing Olympics shot which has the advantage of showing high level sport (instead of some unknown dressage competition) as well as illustrates that you can ride well into your 60s and shows a warmblood.
    I wish we could salvage the Andalusian, as it is absolutely gorgeous. I did represent the Japanese guy as a replacement and I'm not totally opposed to the idea, but I wish we didn't have to replace a beautiful photo with one not quite as good? --BW
  • Overall we'd be removing : the cav shot, the farrier shot, the mare and foal, and the four breeds from the temprament
    Solely due to cutting three photos to one, the engraving is OK with me. I still would like to save the farrier shot or replace it with something similar. I'd like to replace the cav shot with a different warfare image for two reasons, one to not have acres of text with few images in that section and two, the horse in warfare IS the history of the horse, IMHO. --BW
  • Overall we'd be adding the engraving of the breeds and the cute foal.
Sound good? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Overall, sounds good. However, I'm not sure how you're getting four breed shots in the temperaments section. From what I can see, there are three breed shots and the sleeping shot... Also, the mare and foal shot has already been removed (by Montana a day or so ago). Comments on the lead image in a few minutes - I'm going to go see if I can find something decent to replace it with. Dana boomer (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
We are replacing the THREE "temperament" shots and replacing them with the single engraving of the nine horses? Right? And weren't we talking about adding the chariot map (or something) to the domestication section? Montanabw(talk) 21:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We'd still need to replace the lead image in the infobox, we're not having any luck with the licensing on that one. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few thoughts from me...feel free to suggest others - I'd forgotten how hard it is to find a really good picture facing the right direction with the right licensing on Commons... Dana boomer (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I like the Nokota ones, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I favor a simple standard conformation shot of a single horse for the lead. For that reason I like the Black that's first best. A crossbred, so has multiple breed features, mostly well-conformed, looks mildly sickle-hocked, but not so bad to be very noticable, very nice balance, dramatic, etc. The gray Orlov trotter isn't too bad, but is a coarser animal not stood up so well, but perhaps a clearer photo without the trees in the background, I could live with it. The Finnhorse is just such a cutie patootie, even if his neck ties in too low, he's got nice legs and is probably my second choice, but I admit that's because he's just cute and not for any objective reason; and the snow is sort of atypical. I think that the Nokotas already lead off their own article, plus the image doesn't look as good in a thumbnail on my laptop, too small, can barely see them. The 3/4 front shot is kind of weird, just don't like it. For the lead, I think we'd do better to NOT have a horse under saddle, though of the riding shots, that welch cob doing dressage is a more nicely-balanced, more comfortable-looking animal than the warmblood dressage shot in the top row. Montanabw(talk) 21:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be able to replace the current cav image with one from the official army image database; search for horse. These are PD as a work of a federal official (it even says explicitly on the site they are classed as PD). You might be able to get a vet photo from there as well (e.g. this one) Dr pda 22:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading this talk page.... are you still having a problem with a lead image because of the direction it faces? If the license is OK but the picture is facing the wrong way why can't we just flip it? I have done that before and just noted the fact that I flipped the image on commons. I'll be happy to do that if someone sends me the link of a picture you all agree on. - Josette (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Nope, it's license issues on the current lead image. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Right, I mean if you find another good pic but it's facing the wrong way (per Dana)..... too bad about the one that is there now - that's a great picture. - Josette (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Issues, consensus?

OK, so far, here are what I think are the issues and possible answers. Let's just weigh in and let's clarify things. Montanabw(talk) 22:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

  1. Przewalski horse photo fixed by Dana. --BW
  2. Lead image must be replaced due to bad licensing, we are debating the photo to use as a replacement (I personally vote for the black Friesian cross, top left in the gallery above) --BW
  3. Cavalry charge image has bad license and must be replaced. Do we replace it with another war-oriented image or use the space saved for a totally different image? I vote another warfare image, and Dr pda's suggestion above brings up a page with shots up the wazoo (three that are pretty good, IMHO) of that same 1st cavalry horse unit, which I personally favor due to being 1) color photos of 2 ) a group that strives to have authentic equipment from the cavalry era and 3) Action shots. --BW
  4. Do we add an image, possibly the chariot map, to the domestication section? --BW Apparently has died due to lack of interest?
  5. Was it OK to remove the mares and foals photo from the breeding section, or do we need a cute baby pic somewhere? --BW
  6. I think we had consensus to replace the three temperament photos with the single engraving, or did I jump the gun? --BW
  7. We can't salvage the licensing issues with the gorgeous Gray Andalusian in dressage (sob!) so must replace it, probably another dressage photo, possibly the old Japanese guy at the Beijing Olympics on that really nice chestnut Hanoverian, even if it is a "butt shot"? --BW (done)
  8. Do we add a harness image? If so, where? If we do, I vote for the Bud Clydes image noted above. --BW
  9. Do we need to find a Stubbs image, or was that just a side comment by our reviewer? --BW (consensus no)
  10. Do we try to replace the Farrier image with another horse-human interaction image, try to find the original, or do something else entirely? --BW
  • I'm good with the engraving, happy to see the mare and foal gone, think we still need to drop Mesohippus as that section is crowded and that's the one that's superflous (or however you spell the word) think the Bejing shot is a great replacement for the dressage shot, vote no on Stubbs, the baby pic would really only work in the care section in my mind, and think the chariot map is a good go for the domestication section. I'd rather not do Bud Clydes, seems too "advertising" to me to do them, would rather see a diff harness image (that shire in the traces or the belgian without feathering in the small buggy would be good). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I've replaced the warmblood image, and think the temperaments section looks good. However, we have a minor problem with the chariot spread image - from what I can see, there's nothing on the page that notes where the creator got his information. I have dropped a note to the creator, who is still quite active, so he will hopefully add this information. I also vote no on the Stubbs image (sorry Awadewit!), just due to space concerns, but would like to see a harness image. I understand Ealdgyths concerns about advertising, although I think that the Budweiser Clydesdales are an iconic piece of horses as entertainment, at least in the US. However, the Belgian without feathering image would work for me too. As I posted above, I looked to find the original for the farrier image and was not able to find it - however, the website claims copyright and the user has nothing on their webpage tying them to the organization, so it's probably not even a legit PD image anyway. I wasn't able to find any other properly licensed farrier/vet images, either, which was why I proposed the ones above. Well, we're getting there :) Dana boomer (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think Mesohippus needs to stay, that or some other evolutionary ancestor. If we can't add a photo to domestication, oh well, we won't miss what we never had, I guess. I tweaked the caption on the dressage photo a bit. I think the Belgian pulling the two-wheeled care is a nice horse, but the cart looks rather ridiculous--they don't usually use Belgians for pulling two-wheeled carts. If the farrier goes, then bummer, maybe that US military site may have a veterinarian shot or something.

Or, per the killing two birds (harness + war) with one stone, how about one of these:

I kind of like the last one best, even despite the fact that the horses are moving away. Dana boomer (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, but what exactly is the source? This is why I didn't include this photo in the ones I originally posted - I couldn't figure out what an "album" was, who the author was, etc. I just have a feeling that Awadewit/other image reviewers would ask for more information... Dana boomer (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think of the photos, that's the best of this bunch. I rather like the Royal Artillery image in the top row (though Dana likes the bottom row one?) Again, maybe we have a question of if we want to do double-duty on harness and warfare. (The "not too many photos" debate, basically) Montanabw(talk) 05:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Allright, if the licensing is good, than I will go with that one. It was the one I liked best, but I was iffy on the licensing. That way, we kill the military and harness birds with one stone, and don't have extra photos. Montana, the photos below look really cool - sorry we're not using them in this article, but I'm sure we can find a place for them in one of the other horses/warfare type articles. Maybe replace the cavalry charge one in HiW with one of the ones below, since the license is better? Just a thought, if you want to, not really a discussion we need to have here or now. Dana boomer (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Added two. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't have harnesses in it, but...
  • (Lotsa gunpowder)
    (Lotsa gunpowder)
  • (Different angle)
    (Different angle)
  • (reenacted, but kid of cool. Wow, those horses putting up with this!)
    (reenacted, but kid of cool. Wow, those horses putting up with this!)
  • (Painting, can't find artist info, maybe E can on her big screen)
    (Painting, can't find artist info, maybe E can on her big screen)
  • And one of vet work, sort of, not as nice as the farrier shot or as cute as the foal, though... :-P Maybe one for the teeth article
    And one of vet work, sort of, not as nice as the farrier shot or as cute as the foal, though... :-P Maybe one for the teeth article
Ealdgyth - Talk 23:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
    • The issue with this one is that it doesn't say who the actual author was - it gives the "original uploader" which may or may not be the same thing. I had to remove a couple of photos from the Cleveland Bay article at FAC because of this distinction, which were eventually deleted. So, unless we can contact the original uploader (know anyone that speaks Danish?), this one probably isn't usable. Dana boomer (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Dang. Oh well. Have gotten into the military site Drpda found, and uploaded a couple images (thank me, I did this on the dialup and it took forever!) added to gallery above. If redlinked, it's cause they are still uploading. Hope I did the licensing stuff right. Montanabw(talk) 06:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, decisions on lead image

Like at the eye doctor's, I propose, better this way or that way?

  • Lead: No question must be replaced due to licensing problems. Of the above, stated possibilities:
I'd actually prefer to NOT have a conformation shot here, it's perfectly fine in the breed articles, but putting a conformation shot on the "horse" article implies we're endorsing some particular conformation (and I'm sure we'd see whines sometime about it). Do we have a herd shot that looks good? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I fear it's impossible. Note what they did with Dog, they did use a photo of one breed, with links to others. There's a dairy cow at cattle, and maybe the image at cat would solve the problem (six images in one there, maybe we could do three in one--hot, warm, cold, but we'd still have to agree on images and create it from scratch) I cannot see how we can NOT use something that is clearly a breed, the Nokotas, for example, are obviously a feral type horse, so as for a herd, unless we have something like a lineup from the parade of breeds from Kentucky Horse Park, I don't know what other solution is out there. The Mangalarga Marchador was actually stable for almost two years, not being clearly of any particular breed, even though obviously a touch Iberian and gaited...I seriously think we could get away with something else, I'm leaning toward the Orloff Trotter (the gray horse) at the moment, as it's not one of the popularity contest breeds, it is a racing type, but not really obviously any particular one, etc...
How about moving File:Horse-and-pony.jpg up to the lead? Then no one can complain we're "favouring" a breed and it's cute and it's got a mini AND a draft in it. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
That's not a draft, that's a warmblood-type of some sort. Montanabw(talk) 03:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Or File:Big and Little.jpg with a caption "Horses come in a range of sizes, from miniatures to much larger individuals"
Ooooohh, I like the second one. Not all wet and muddy, and the mini doesn't look freaked out of his mind! Dana boomer (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
"Big and Little" is definitely cuter, in fact, adorable! But for the lead? Maybe a swap with the other big/little one. And that mare isn't a draft, either, they claim she's a Friesian/Morgan cross (and looks like she got the worst of both! That head is HUGE!) Plus, though cutsey, this is the "horse" article, not the "pony" article. And frankly, if the "Mariah" in the photo is the same as in "Mariah struts her stuff," it's a really unflattering photo of Mariah! She looks like a draft horse, not a partbred Morgan! I have to say that I still strongly favor a basic simple horse photo, and if we are using Friesian crossbreds anyway, why not that solo black #1 photo then? (Other than the tree in the way). I really see no problem with a "conformation" photo, as while phenotype and body build vary with breeds, ALL breeds should have correct legs, well-muscled bodies, etc. A good horse is a good horse. We could look for another action shot of a loose horse, also, that's another possibility, may mean breed characteristics less pronounced. But there is NO WAY we will make everyone happy here and frankly, I'd rather put in a high quality photo of a correctly-built horse and then defend it. The overwhelming majority of horses in the world are riding-sized animals, anyway. Something vaguely warmblood-y can look like almost anything. Montanabw(talk) 03:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, possible herd/action shots:

Can we compromise on any of these? Dana boomer (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I could live with the running Haflinger if the issue is that we don't want a standing-still horse. It's a good photo of an attractive animal and well-composed. The gray gets washed out with the background, and on my little laptop, I really don't care for the small resolved size of the horses in a herd shot. I say ONE horse. Montanabw(talk) 16:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The background of the Haflinger sucks though... and the clutter in the background is distracting. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I added another...  ;) - Josette (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't vote on that one, I took it. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I DO like Ealdgyth's shot. Will have no licensing problems! If not that one, then I say go back to the gray Orlov, he's kind of rawboned, but the shot is well-composed. Oh and I added the cute foal as the lead image at Foal. While there, speaking of cute baby shots for somewhere: File:Poulain de race ardennaise 1.jpg Montanabw(talk) 17:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
infobox-size

Hi. The current image is ok, but I guess it's going for licensing reasons. Of the images above, I'd suggest:

This image is a natural setting with good foreground/background contrast. While not tight-in on the two, people will get it and the image will work well in the page layout and make the page look 'good'. (2nd choice: File:Adlisberg IMG 4207.JPG, but it's crooked.) Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nokota Horses

go for ride?

moar like this? Jack Merridew 18:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the picture by Ealdgyth (I knew she took it - I searched for one of hers). The horse has a gorgeous face, shiny coat, healthy weight and is a good example to represent the article. - Josette (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
All the images with bridles and fences don't do it for me; it's too much about the we domesticated you aspect and not about the overall view. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I like the Nokota image as well (and I know Ealdgyth does per one of her comments a few sections ago), but Montana didn't because it seemed too small. However, the infobox size shot above does seem clear, and as Jack says it presents an image of less domestication, which I like. Montana, could you live with the shot since it's quite a bit clearer at infobox size? I know you said that to you it looked like an obvious feral herd shot, but I don't really agree - I saw a few groups of ranch horses in Arizona this summer from which a shot identical to this could have been taken (well, except there would have been mountains in the background!). Dana boomer (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The 'go for ride' image is a zoom-in and crop of the one floating at right. Above, this is done dynamically (see the heap of html-divs); for use in the article, the image would be zoomed and cropped w/Photoshop and uploaded as a derivative work. When evaluating images, don't just consider them as they are; rather, consider what they could be. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
That and the front horse is skinny (you can see her ribs) and goose-rumped. But sure, they have cute faces. Possibly if we cropped it a bit. so the horses were a bit more dominant, I could suck it up, but it wouldn't be my favorite pick. I suppose there's the whole romance thing of the "wild and free horsey," which tires me out. The horse IS a domesticated animal and has been for thousands of years, in fact, they may have become extinct had they not (as did happen in North America), but by and large, they get a pretty good deal, they doubled their lifespan and don't get eaten, at least not nearly so soon, anyway. I can accept if consensus goes against me on this, but then we get the cute army guy shot for horse care, darn it!  :-P Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Cropped image

OK, I've attempted to crop the image, and the above is my final product. Let me know what ya'll think... Dana boomer (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from wishing we could photoshop out the ribs on that horse which are now even more obvious, if that's the image we must use, then it's as good as it's going to get. (grump, grump, grump) I still think they are scrub range horses, (grump) but I also know when I'm outvoted.(whine) And if we must give in to the "wild and free" romantisicm baloney -- which I think we are -- (grump , grump, grump) I guess this is the best of the wild and free-looking shots available to us. :-P But yeah, go ahead and add it. I reserve the right for a "told ya so" if the image doesn't stay stable, though! (Noogies) (And you can give me a told ya so if it does stay stable other than the usual vandalism) Montanabw(talk) 00:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've added it. If it doesn't end up being stable, you are more than free to reserve the right for an "I told you so"! Dana boomer (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Military/Harness shot

  1. Harness or cavalry? Harness, non-military AND military? Pop in your favorite nominees here if not already here:

Military harness

Military not-harness

Civilian harness (with known-good licensing)

Russian black and white (fourth military harness shot). Dana boomer (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I think Ealdgyth liked that one too, so I'll be a good sport and call it consensus. (I personally dig the helicopter shot, but oh well, I'll cope!...LOL!) Montanabw(talk) 04:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Horse care

Farrier shot has to be removed due to licensing problems. Should it be replaced, and with what? Should there be people in the shot? Nominees:

First choice cute foal (caption could be something like "all domestic horses, including foals, need human care, such as feed and shelter", second choice army guys checking teeth (nice shot btw, and caption could be something like "cute guy checks out well-groomed horse"...oops, I don't think that's NPOV *grin*). Dana boomer (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I like the military one, but then, I was the one who uploaded it to commons! LOL! I actually like your first "all domestic horses need human care" caption concept, but on the army photo. (And that horse does have an astonishingly shiny coat when viewed at full resolution! Really, I was only looking for a pretty horse...  ;-) Personally, I favor a horse-human interaction photo for the horse care section. We COULD put the baby horse photo back up where the mares and foals were, but that does add a photo back in... Montanabw(talk) 04:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, so cute army guy or cute baby foal for the Horse Care section? I say cute army guy because the horse looks like it's smiling... LOL! And seriously, I like the horse-human interaction. Montanabw(talk) 17:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I can live with the army guy/horse shot, especially now that the cute foal has the lead in his own article. Ealdgyth? Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I like the teeth shot too. And, it reminds me... as soon as its warm enough time to get the herd done.. fun! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Since we seem to have consensus, I have switched this one out. Another one down! Dana boomer (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Review of colors and markings section

I think it would be more useful to the average reader to say that the most common colors are black, (shades of brown) bay, chestnut and grey ("white"), and then to explain that white markings and patches are inherited separately from coat color. This is what I would do:

Horses exhibit a diverse array of coat colors and distinctive markings, described with a specialized vocabulary. Often, a horse is classified first by its coat color, before breed or sex.[1] Horses of the same color may be distinguished from one another by their markings.[2] Flashy or unusual colors are sometimes very popular, as are horses with particularly attractive markings.

I would reword that sentence, which I would put last. At present, the use of "sometimes" is vague and the sentence isn't particularly informative. It might be better to say that horse coat colors are subject to trends of popularity (just as everything else is!). "Loud" hasn't always been popular, but this is not the first time that it has been so, either. Do we have a cite for this statement, anyways?


Many genes that create horse coat colors have been identified, although research continues to further identify factors that result in specific traits. Essentially, all horse coat colors begin with a genetic base of the "red factor", or extension gene (e or E) which produces "red" (chestnut) when recessive or "black" when dominant.

You know I'd have something to say about this! I don't really think that this statement is required, but if one was going to include it, I'd prefer something that recognizes that black-red is only considered a "base" because we find it easier to understand that way. For example: One of the first genetic relationships to be discovered was that between recessive "red" (chestnut) and dominant "black", which is controlled by the "red factor" or extension gene. I find that the use of letters (E or e) is distracting, and not especially helpful for people who don't already understand what dominant and recessive mean to begin with.

Additional alleles acting on these base colors control spotting, graying, suppression or dilution of color, and other effects that create the dozens of possible coat colors found in horses.[3]

Technically, those additional alleles which restrict the migration of melanocytes do not act on the extension gene, so that ought to be removed.

Horses which are white in coat color are often mislabeled as "white" horses. However, a horse that looks white is usually a middle-aged or older gray. Grays are born a darker shade, get lighter as they age, and usually have black skin underneath their white hair coat (with the exception of pink skin under white markings). The only horses properly called white are born with a white hair coat and have predominantly pink skin, a fairly rare occurrence.[4] There are no truly "albino" horses, with pink skin and red eyes, as homozygous dominant white is believed to be a lethal condition in horses.[5]

The fact that there are no known amelanistic horses is utterly unrelated to the theory that some forms of piebaldism are homozygous lethal. I would never have combined those statements into a single thought. Otherwise, a great deal of information has been conveniently packaged, well done. Countercanter (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I am glad you weighed in, cc, and I'll make some tweaks, see what you think. Can you give us a better way to say the "horses are never 'albino' thing? I'd appreciate some wording ideas there. Also, I added some sentences, we will need sources for these. (We need sources to say the sky is blue for this article, I swear) Montanabw(talk) 17:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pre FAC source check...

These are the "problems". Some of them may be linked to print publications and okay, but online forum sites aren't going to pass muster, no matter how long they've been around. So we may need to replace all these. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is thehorse.com a problem site? It's the website of the The Horse magazine, which is published by the same company that publishes Blood Horse. Both of these are long-lasting, respected publications, so I'm not sure why their website would be at issue. Not to mention I've used articles from it in other recent FACs (Icelandic horse and Cleveland Bay) and no-one (including you!) had an issue with them. Dana boomer (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see the explicit connection between The Horse and the Blood-horse .. you might want to keep a link to that handy for the source reviewer. The thing is.. *I* won't be doing the source review here so it'll be someone else and you never know. Better to be ready....Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll make sure to keep the link handy - I know that non-horse people sometimes question sites we consider to be unimpeachable (just like I would probably do with a cricket article or something!). As for the others, I agree that they need to be replaced. I may take a stab at that tonight... Dana boomer (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with the sites from The Horse, it's the leading popular publication for the American Association of Equine Practitioners, meets all WP:V criteria as far as I know, and it's solid. In most cases,they do cite their sources and if someone wants to go to the underlying journal that they used and cite directly to that, well, I'm not going to do it but someone certainly can. I think it says something like "Blood Horse Publications" at the bottom of every article, or at least it does in the print magazine.The rodeo article we can dig into, I'd be willing to look that over. What, precisely, are the problems with the other two? Montanabw(talk) 21:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Basically, they aren't "print" publications or sources that are known for being such. If they are affliated with a print magazine that helps show reliablity, but random internet-magazines that don't have print ones associated aren't considered reliable sources. The main problem with the rodeo thing is that I'm suspecting they lifted it from the print magazine, which is a big no-no. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me, but The Horse IS a print publication, and I get it every month. It's just that only about half the articles they post online appear in the magazine, and even the ones that DO appear in the magazine, well heck, I recycle my magazines, I can't find something that was in the 2007 March issue! I'll grant you the others, but The Horse IS perfectly legitimate, cites it's sources, etc. Montanabw(talk) 05:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Ealdgyth was replying to your last question ("What, precisely, are the problems with the other two") with the print publications comment. I'm fairly sure that anyone who has been in the horse world for more than six months knows that The Horse is a print publication. :) I think we've decided that thehorse.com is reliable, but we may have to show this at the FAC to non-horsey editors by proving its link to the print publications of The Horse and Blood Horse (which is pretty easy, I already have the link saved). Dana boomer (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
To give a bit more background on what I looked at, the DressageConnection site allows anyone to send in articles, and they don't give any sources. There is no description of author expertise, and their main claim to fame seems to be that they are "very well ranked" on the internet (per themselves, see here). After taking a closer look at the Horsetalk article, though, I'm not really sure. Although they are mainly a sales site that doesn't give references or evidence of expert editorial oversight, the article in question was written by "Dr Evelyn B. Hanggi...the president and co-founder of the non-profit Equine Research Foundation (ERF), located in Aptos, California. The foundation's website is at www.equineresearch.org. The ERF investigates equine cognition, perception and behaviour using non-invasive methods based on positive reinforcement.", which may qualify her as an expert author on an otherwise non-expert site (a la about.com or something of the sort). Thoughts, Ealdgyth? Dana boomer (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Look and see if Hanggi has published in peer reviewed journals on the subject, that's a better judge than whether she works for a non-profit (that I've never heard of). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
And sorry if I seem cranky today, my head is pounding, I slept badly last night and I just lost my copyeditor... so .. yeah, I'm cranky. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that turned up a goldmine. According to Worldcat, here, she's had equine intelligence/behavior research published in a bunch of journals, including Journal of Comparative Psychology, Applied Animal Behavior Science, Behavioral Processes and Animal Cognition, over a ten year period stretching from 1999 to 2009. And you have every right to be peeved about the copyeditor thing - I'm not happy about it either :) Hope this helps - go get some sleep and see your ponies, those two things always help me to be more happy! Dana boomer (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
We're all cranky. May be spring fever. Hugs??? Montanabw(talk) 05:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I've struck the three above that I think are finished. There's just the one dressage connection ref that needs to be replaced; I know we had trouble finding this ref in the first place so we may have to do quite a bit of digging to replace it with a reliable source. I haven't been able to find anything so far that states this explicitly... Dana boomer (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the last bad ref. Ealdgyth, is there anything else that needs tweaking, ref wise? Dana boomer (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Biology sections issues: domestication and current species

I tagged the domestication section because the references and the text do not match any more, specific studies that have been superceded with better studies are prominently displayed while other studies are absent. The coat-color ancient DNA study needs to be added because it is crucial with regard to determining when domestication stated. Some sentences are self-contradicting. The structure of some of the paragraphs does not make sense.

The "Wild species surviving into modern times" needs attention too. Riwoche horse section is nothing more than a discredited speculation and has undue weight. You can add probably about half a dozen similar examples that are equally discredited. Breed back story has too much weight. Subspecies are not types. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We can tweak this a bit, no argument there, but my concern is basically that while Kim knows some of this stuff, it's put in as coming near-verbatim from scientific studies reads like gibberish to the average reader. There is a need to explain it in terms a person who is a non-scientist can understand. And if we don't address some of the popular stuff, like people's constant wishful thinking that some new horse is the original ancient ancestor, then it's just going to be added back in later. I mean, my god, I'm the worst cynic around here and look how hard it is for me to let go of stuff we've been weaned on! Montanabw(talk) 05:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
He, kick my ass if it is to complex, I can explain in more detail. But in my opinion, it had become more complex because it would jump immediatly in the experiment stuff without explaining the broad line first. And if we address popular stuff, it has to be accurate, not fueling wild speculations for which there is no evidence. We are an encyclopaedia, not a gossip magazine. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 07:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, what actually is wrong with this chunk that was removed? 2009 source, legitimate author? I'm curious what the problem was. Montanabw(talk) 06:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There may also have been multiple centers of domestication. Humans on the Iberian Peninsula may have domesticated the horse independently from other cultures as early as the Chalcolithic period, although there has been insufficient research to date to verify this hypothesis.[6]

This is one of those oversold speculations. There is NO evidence for multiple complete independent domestication events, just as there is NO evidence that domestication occured at one specific time and location after which the domesticated horses concurred the world. The multiple independent domestications is the wet dream of many horse people, but there is no evidence for it. All we have at the moment is that a specific female haplotype is exclusive to the Iberian peninsula. But we know from a list of studies that many many mares have been included into the breeding stock of the domesticated horse. The major reason we know that there are no independent domestication events is because there is literally one single stallion that was used in domestication. All stallions originate from a single domesticated stallion. Even the prewalski's stallions have more variation in the Y-chromosome in the few horses that founded the current stock than all domestic stallions from across the globe that have been sampled. So, I understand that it would be oh so exciting IF true, but for the moment, all evidence is completely consistent with the one stallion, many mares hypothesis that is best supported by evidence. Until the y-chromosome of the lustiano C haplotype individuals is examined showing an additional stallion y-chromosome haplotype, this idea is nothing more than a wild speculation based on wishful thinking only. Why was it put in the paper, well, two reasons. 1. It sells the research to the wider public. 2. Completeness. We often include speculations to cover all possibilities. So, for now, all we know is that we have one unique iberian mtDNA haplotype consistent with the one stallion many mares hypothesis. The claim in the sentcne above was giving severe undue weight to a speculation for which there is no evidence. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 07:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey! No fair (grin)! How come you can say "kiss my ass" and "wet dream" AND get away with it, but if I said it, I'd have five people file an ANI on me? (grin) NOT FAIR AT ALL! (noogies at Kim). I'll go along with your text edits given how strong your views are here, and I'm not really arguing that you are wrong, as you seldom are (more noogies, though) but IMHO you are overstating a bit to say there is NO evidence...there is speculation based on very slim evidence, yes, but don't all hypotheses begin as speculation, from which one gathers more data to prove or disprove them? And "single domestication event for a limited number of stallions" means only one stallion or at least a few? (I'm in agreement that obviously, more mares than stallions adapted to initial domestication) Well, do take a look at the small changes and the hidden text I put into the article, though. As far as too complex, if I, who happen to have over 10 years of higher education and all sorts of nice diplomas, am having trouble understanding what on earth some of this stuff means (I mean, what the **** is meant by "detectable substructure"? Sounds like you are talking about the basement of a house there.) then it can't hurt to explain it just a wee bit more for us mere mortals -- not change, just explain. (I mean, Ealdgyth is constantly putting "a dam means the mother horse" in most of her FA horse biographies. We ARE dealing with non-professional reviewers here). Montanabw(talk) 00:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
LOL. Anyway. Lets see. Ok, you have to tell me, what is the evidence for a separate domestication and against the leading hypothesis of a single stallion and many mares?
  • Mostly the evidence for addition of local mares from various regions into domesticated herds. Seems illogical that all domesticated horses only trace to one stallion and that his descendants became the ONLY stallions who ever impregnated domestic mares. Which study out of that pile said ONLY one stallion and no genetic diversity? The ones I looked at said there were "few" stallions, which makes sense. But one?? Montanabw(talk) 10:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is stuff that needs to be rewritten. What happens with me is that it sometimes takes a few rounds because I first try to get it right and from there modify ot to something more and more readable. I will have a look at the stuff that I made to difficult, my bad.
The evidence for the stallions suggest one single stallion. There is literally NO genetic variation at the Y-chromosome between stallions from individuals that are very far from each other generally in phylogenetic trees.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'd feel more comfortable hearing " no evidence YET." I'm fine with keeping speculation to a minimum, but it seems illogical, basically, that every single domesticated horse in the entire world came from one single progenitor stallion, only 4-5 thousand years ago. (Now for the theory that gray horses all descend from a common ancestor, I'll buy that one) Similarly the theory that horses were driven before being ridden was also illogical, the only reason it was posited was that chariots were rather obvious finds and they just had not found enough evidence of riding at the time. Likewise, it seems illogical to suggest that wild stallions did not breed domesticated mares at times, with the ensuing foals raised in domesticated conditions, god knows modern domestic horses escape from time to time...I guess I'm not saying the data is wrong, just that it appears rather incomplete given the reality of horse behavior, particularly that of boy horses with hormones. Montanabw(talk) 10:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is TOO CUTE! Can we find a home for it? Montanabw(talk) 07:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Very cute! However, if it went in it would have to replace the Mesohippus one already there, and I think the Mesohippus one is better, honestly. Perhaps in the Evolution of the horse article? Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Final image things

I believe that there are just two minor image things to work out before we ask Awadewit back for another look-see:

I have looked for sources for both of these in my books and can't find anything that matches up exactly - they're either missing something or have different names for a couple of parts. Another minor issue would be if we want to add an image to the domestication section - I'm still working on getting an answer from the user (who is active) as to what his source was for the creation of the image. Dana boomer (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Update So apparently the chariot image was a collation of information in the chariot article, none of which is really sourced to in-line citations. What about using File:Standard of Ur chariots.jpg? Dana boomer (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Source for the text of what? The caption, or something about the image on the image's page, or...? (I'm confused what the problem is, just that there is one). On the domestication section, I could live without an image there is Ealdgyth still thinks the article is image heavy, but on the other hand, if we do add an image, I am generally a fan of the war panel of the Standard of Ur as pretty hard to dispute for what it is, and though I wish that excerpt was a bit better quality, for the concept itself, it's sound. The only issue someone (not me) might raise is that the animals have long ears so may be donkeys or onagers instead of horses. Also, some people say those vehicles are wagons, not chariots. However, both concerns can be addressed by a caption that just says what is obvious, that this is pictoral evidence of early equine domestication. Montanabw(talk) 21:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I wrote that wrong, and have now corrected it above. It should have been that it needs a source for the text added to the image, not the article. Basically, these were theoretically images with no text that someone then added text to. We need to know where they got the names for the various parts from, just so that someone (if they really wanted to) could go back and check to make sure no mistakes were made. Since the uploaders are either not active or not responding to requests, we need to add a source that backs up the text that was added - doesn't matter if it actually was the source the creators actually got the information from, as long as it backs up that the information is correct. Am I making more sense now? Dana boomer (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I think if what's on the skeleton is correct, even if some labels not there (with 107 bones or something like that, inevitably something will be left out on a simple diagram) we can use the source, noting that additional stuff is in the source, though if you think there's a bigger issue with something just wrong, I know the uploader once corrected something I spotted on the diagram. I suppose we could also locate a public domain encyclopedia like the 1913 Britannica, as I doubt the bone names have changed in 100 years, even as other terminology has...As for the horse parts, I thought that came from some older public domain encyclopedia or something alreay. If we can't find it, I propose two ideas: 1) Find some other old public domain encyclopedia that isn't too archaic, or 2) I can trace an outline from a photo I took (or Ealdgyth's or any very simple-to-use-the-lasso-tool in paint photo) and just label it based on a decent book or two that we can source as "original drawing based on information contained in sources x, y , and z." Will take me some time, but it could be fun -- I did two diagrams of bits and took wiki photos and labeled saddle parts on them too...I can't say I am a premier graphic artist and I don't have photoshop, but I can produce something copyright correct and accurate. Montanabw(talk) 00:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that anything on either drawing is incorrect, I'm just saying that if some random editor at some point in the future thought they were incorrect they need to know where to go to verify the information. The "source" we use for the text doesn't have to be PD. It just needs to be a reliable source that has a similar drawing with the same names for stuff as the drawing. So if, for example, my Pony Club book had the same names for stuff as the drawing, that could be used as a source (I checked, it differs on a few aspects and so can't be used as a source). Basically, any book that backs up the fact that the poll is indeed the poll and the croup is indeed the croup will work - same for the skeleton article. Basically, if someone were to say "I think that xyz piece of the drawing is wrong", you would send them to a certain book to verify it, right? Now, we just need to find that certain book and add it in - just something saying "text verified by The Dictionary of the Horse by John L. Smith" or whatever we end up coming up with. No PD necessary. Make sense? Dana boomer (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Does make sense, I fear we will never find perfect matches, but I'll look through my books too. Could we say something like "verified by books X except for three things, A,B, and C, which are verified by Book Y"? Montanabw(talk) 05:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Follow up: The parts drawing has minor errors, (slightly imprecise spans for back and loin, "ankle" for fetlock on the back leg, my pet peeve) no worse than I've seen in the average 4-H manual, though. Montanabw(talk) 05:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC) BRAINSTORM: I could no find the raw drawing upon which this was based, but there are dozens of other old drawings in commons that one of us (I can volunteer) could label with a source...For example, pick your favorite of these as a base (maybe flipped so facing left or cropped a bit) Oh, by the way, does anyone else feel like this:Montanabw(talk) 06:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • color& by Stubbs
    color& by Stubbs
  • & another Stubbs
    & another Stubbs

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this :) Rather than making new ones (not to mention I don't really like any of the images above), what about using one or more of these to replace the ones that need replacing (both diagrams, the whole horse and the skeleton). We don't necessarily need to replace them exactly:

You are right about the evolution one, though maybe I can toss it into the evolution article. I don't think any of the partial skeleton images are worth using, other than MAYBE the Stubbs posterior one, though I wonder if we could find/use a full body skeletal study by Stubbs (I know he did them, I also know where there's a book in my local library...but it is legal to take a photo of a image from a copyrighted book even if the image itself was public domain in a museum???) I can't get the parts of the horse one to come up on the dialup tonight (it's a PNG, so slower than constipated...) so will look that over later. We also may be able to find some old PD encyclopedias with good images, but I'll have to go hunting when I have a faster connection. Montanabw(talk) 04:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I believe any of the images here and here are in the public domain. The last one on the page might make a good starting point if we decided that we should make one ourselves.

Horse parts

Note that someone swapped around the horse parts image to the same image under a different name...see licensing at commons. Did that fix our problem with that image? Montanabw(talk) 22:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, didn't fix the licensing problem. We still don't know where the editor who added the anatomy terms got that information from. Dana boomer (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder: Could we just take that image -- the image itself is OK, correct? Erase the names of the parts on there now and add ones directly attributable to a verifiable source? Montanabw(talk) 23:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, hadn't seen this. Yes, the image itself is OK, just the text is bad, because we can't figure out what source it was taken from. If you want to erase the names, then readd them according to a verifiable source, then that would be fine. Actually, this would work for both images that we're having problems with (the general conformation image and the skeleton image). Dana boomer (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Historical uses inaccurate?

The article now says Horses were historically used in warfare, from which a wide variety of riding and driving techniques developed, but I think that may be inaccurate. While there were certainly military uses, I believe the largest number of horses were used in transportation and farming, not warfare. So I'd suggest changing it to read: Horses were historically used in farming, transportation, and warfare, from which a wide variety of riding and driving techniques developed. Comments? T-bonham (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming to the talk page with this exact thought... Warfare is certainly an important aspect, but the use of horses for transportation literally shaped human history for millennia, yet it receives no mention. It's not just the intro: the article virtually ignores the subject of transportation and concentrates on contemporary interaction with humans, which is quite incredible, and warrants a WP:GAR. GregorB (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, take a look at Horses in warfare. Also review the domestication section. We are open to ideas here, but most historical uses of horses other than warfare happen to continue into the present, so not sure what you are after here. Montanabw(talk) 22:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Oddly, the domestication section does not say for what purpose were the horses domesticated. The intro mentions warfare only, as already noted.
Historical uses other than warfare: if we limit ourselves to Roman Empire only, there are Roman roads, built for horse-drawn carriages, and Cursus publicus, horse courier and transport service. So, horses were not vital just for transportation, but for communication too. (Two more examples: Yam (route) and Pony Express, of course.) These are uses that had a major historical impact, yet do not continue into the modern era. GregorB (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
But Roman roads weren't built for horses - they are generally considered to have been built for infantry. The stone finish on them would be "bad" for horses that weren't shod (as Roman horses weren't). I'm not saying the section doesn't need some expansion, but you need sources for everything, not just "i know this" or speculation. And as for why horses were domesticated, folks aren't even sure WHEN they were domesticated, so how would we know why just yet? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, not horses per se, but horse-drawn carriages among other modes of transportation - see Roman roads#Vehicles_and_transportation. It makes sense, because wheeled vehicles work better on a hard surface, and pulling is much easier than carrying.
You're quite right regarding the purpose of domestication - we cannot simply guess what happened 6000 years ago. However, my point was rather that the article mentions domestication, then skips several millennia of history (except for the warfare bit), then elaborates on present-day interaction. Regarding references: there's http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/By_Subject/Horse_in_Human_Civilization/, for example. Two quotes from http://www.amnh.org/:
  • For most of human history, there was no faster way to travel over land than on a horse.
  • By carrying people, goods and ideas between civilizations, horses changed history.
Regards, GregorB (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, um, technically ships were probably faster at times! LOL! Basically, the comments above simply could be somehow added to an intro and in theory we could pop one or two more sentences into the domestication section, but really, you really DO have a gap of several millennia where we either have to go into exhaustive detail on every culture's uniqueness in the world (which is what has bogged down Horses in warfare and kept it from going from GA to FA), or we pretty much say what we say: People rode horses, people drove horses, and thus horses were used for sport, warfare and work. And until the invention of the internal combustion engine, animal power was the only game in town. But otherwise, this just mirrors the opening lines of the Chamberlain book that is used as a source. What we know is simple: Horses were domesticated prior to the development of writing, so precise dates can only be gleaned from archaeological evidence. Nonetheless, horses were quickly adapted to be tools of war, and that's our strongest evidence for their use. While oxen, donkeys and what have you could pull things and even carry people, it was the speed and agility of horses that made them unique, and uniquely suited for mounted and then chariot warfare--long before Rome was a gleam in the eye (Note Standard of Ur. I can't recall if it's here or in one of the other articles (possibly the lengthy domestication of the horse, but walled, fortified towns arose in very short order after the domestication of the horse. What I am hearing in the comments above isn't so much a need to add a huge history section as much as a need for another history article, perhaps something titled Horses in Ancient Rome to go with our warfare articles.
So again, here is my question: Where is the problem? If the dispute is the warfare versus ag/transport issue, I can most certainly add more sources. Actually, to note the original comment above, until the invention of the horse collar in the middle ages, which finally allowed horses to use their full strength, oxen were more suited to plowing and could pull more weight. Horses also were not creatures of the common folk, as a rule (mules, donkeys and oxen were). Next, if there is a need for more historical detail, WHERE do we put anything new? Any significant detail needs to go elsewhere, as this article already gets hammered on occasion for its length. So...clarify, please what it is is you actually want to see here. Montanabw(talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, regarding ships, some were probably faster, but AMNH is clear on this in the quote above: no faster way to travel over land.
Expanding the intro presumably won't be enough, since the intro should summarize the rest of the article. Provided we basically agree here (i.e. that the article omits some facts, and that these facts are vital for this subject), here's how one might approach it.
I agree that historical articles on horses, such as Horses in Ancient Rome, are certainly desirable, but it is not desirable to go into historical detail in this article. Two or three paragraphs, if well-summarized, should be enough. There are two approaches that I can see here:
  1. Introduce a some sort of "History" section, of which "Domestication" will be a subsection. "Warfare" section might be moved here as a subsection, since the use in warfare is almost entirely historical now.
  2. Expand "Interaction with humans" with historical overview. One might expand the subsections and/or expand the section's intro.
I tend to favor #1, because #2 will make the already large section even larger. Perhaps the interaction section is best limited to modern-day description. Basically, once this is decided, it will be much easier to organize the article to incorporate new content. GregorB (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to a "history" section built off the domestication section, but that doesn't mean that I think the article needs it all that much, actually. I actually dread creating it because with 6000 years of history to draw from, there is going to be a lot left out and because everyone is going to have their own particular area of emphasis, we will be opening up a real can of worms. (Including people who think the article should stick to biology, period) I'd almost want to create a separate history article that builds on the (already very long) Domestication of the horse article and then do your 2-3 paragraph summary here with a link to a longer work. But either way, to maintain GA status, there are exactly three people in WPEQ (at the most, five) who have enough source material (and motivation) to create a proper section with quality, verifiable sources, and we are all very busy. I suppose I could whip out Chamberlain again, but my god where to even begin? I say this as a person with expertise, this is a daunting thing you ask -- we have the Scythians, the Persians, the Hittites, the Greeks, the Romans, a kazillion cultures from the Middle Ages, and then all the warfare stuff...beyond a summary of the significant developments in antiquity, the rest is mostly warfare and cultural history...maybe someone could start a sandbox for ideas. Montanabw(talk) 21:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree with you that this - being presumably a high-level summary - is very difficult to write, for the reasons you stated. But it doesn't have to be (moreover, it probably shouldn't be) too detailed: a two-paragraph summary is sufficient.
Sticking to biology is not a serious option. (For reference, it is interesting to compare this article to, say, dog.) I don't do reviews nor would I submit this article to WP:GAR, but to be quite honest, if I were a GA reviewer, I'd fail it as it stands. Not because it's a bad article overall - far from it - but because in my opinion it currently does not meet GA criterion 3a.
That's about it, I'm afraid. Sorry I could not offer you more help on this - I've tried to explain the problem and give a few ideas on how to resolve it. Surely someone will act on this sooner or later. GregorB (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Evolution

The article says evolution as if its a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.132.197 (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This article (including the section on evolution) is sourced to reliable sources. If you know of reliable sources that contain pertinent information that is not already included in the article, please post those sources here. If you wish to contribute to the article directly, you must create an account and become an autoconfirmed user (I believe the requirements are 10 edits and four days or something of the sort). This is because the article is semi-protected due to the high level of vandalism that it recieves when unprotected. If you have further questions, please post here or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Predators

Something should be mentioned about what animals eat the horse, right? I would assume mountain lions and other ambush hunters. Tisane talk/stalk 22:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Take this with a grain of salt because I've read none of the literature and know prescious little about horses, but, I would assume they're pretty much at the top of the food chain. I mean, they're big and generally live in areas that don't support much bigger animals (or much bigger carnivores at least).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, they aren't. No horns, no sharp teeth. Basically, they run away. Pretty much any predator that is above the size of a coyote can and will kill a horse in the right circumstances. And ones that are smaller than a coyote can if they hunt in packs. Remember there are no true "wild" horses anymore, all of them are feral, and thus tend to have been introduced after most of the large predators were eliminated. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Average km per year and food usage

I search for information about historical use of horses. How many km riding per year How many km pulling vehicles per year m² landscape used to produce the biomass to feed the horse It's for a study about cost comparsion in transportation and to compare with modern technic like photovoltaic and wind energy and electric mobility --Pege.founder (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Age

I think "Age" is sort of a strange name for a subsection. Wouldn't something like longevity be more appropriate?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Kind of, except that the section goes beyond longevity and also covers terminology used to describe horses in different parts of their life cycle, foal, filly/colt, etc... Open to ideas, though. Montanabw(talk) 21:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
True. Perhaps Age and longevity or Longevity and age?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Or Life span? GregorB (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Either of the three, I just thing Age is a little to general and doesn't really describe all that is in the section.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that you both are missing the point. The section isn't just about how long horses live, it also is about specialized language used to describe horses at different ages. So it IS a pretty general section and thus "lifespan" is also not suitable. We aren't opposed to article improvement, but please don't suggest superficial changes that don't fit the text. Montanabw(talk) 20:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, ignoring the name of the section for a minute, I think the section should start with: "The following terminology is used to describe horses of various ages:" and end with the two paragraphs that are currently first. Right?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure. There was a good reason we put the longevity stuff first, sort of in the "what do people ask about?" realm... I'm kind of wondering if the problem is that the section is trying to lump fairly different things, loosely related...I'm thinking that we may have been consolidated a lot of scattered stuff... maybe the solution is more subheadings, keep the heading "Age" and perhaps add "longevity" AND "terminology." Thoughts?? Montanabw(talk) 02:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a good solution to me.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Zakuska71, 12 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In light of the recent articles.

Ancient DNA reveals late survival of mammoth and horse in interior Alaska http://www.pnas.org/content/106/52/22352.full

I request that the "extinction dates" in North America of 10000BC for both Mammoths and Horses be revised.

They both have been shown to have survived well into the Holocene possibly as late as 7600 yrs BP.

Perhaps a new section on their extinction and some of the information that is avaiable would be in order? Zakuska71 (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, using the 7600 mark is taking one end of the range they give. The other end is 10500, and using the closer date only would strtch the conclusions of the article. I will see what I can add about this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Fixed it in the appropriate section.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Changes look good to me. Thanks, Kim. Montanabw(talk) 17:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Issue with Intelligence and learning

I think we should change "herd mentality", with "herd behaviour". In general we use mentality for humans and behaviour for animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.15.246.238 (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Vogel, The Complete Horse Care Manual, p. 14
  2. ^ Mills, et al., A Basic Guide to Horse Care and Management, pp. 72–73
  3. ^ "Horse Coat Color Tests". Veterinary Genetics Laboratory. University of California. Retrieved 2008-05-01.
  4. ^ "Introduction to Coat Color Genetics". Veterinary Genetics Laboratory. University of California. Retrieved 2008-05-01.
  5. ^ Mau, C., Poncet, P. A., Bucher, B., Stranzinger, G. & Rieder, S. "Genetic mapping of dominant white (W), a homozygous lethal condition in the horse (Equus caballus) (2004)". Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics. 121 (6): 374–383. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0388.2004.00481.x. Retrieved 9 January 2009.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ Lira, Jaime; et al. (25 Nov 2009). "Ancient DNA reveals traces of Iberian Neolithic and Bronze Age lineages in modern Iberian horses". Molecular Ecology. 19 (1): 64–78. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04430.x. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Horse/Archive_7&oldid=1136802811"