User talk:Dana boomer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soviet Heavy Draft Horse

Hi, thanks for your work on this article, it's good to know someone out there knows what to do with horse articles - I just wikilinked the damn thing. mattbuck (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the wild and wacky world of the horse breeds articles, by the way! You are doing a nice job (I know this because I don't have to chase you down and revert everything! (grin). Thanks for your help. Watch out for copyright issues with some of these breeds that have very few sources, can be a challenge to create content sometimes. By the way, there is a need for additional articles to be created on the assorted breeds of horse/pony native to Japan...we have three or four done, but there are 7 or 8 breeds, see Noma pony or Misaki for examples (and a footnote in each with wikilinks for the existing articles and list of the ones not yet created). I see you also found WikiProject horse breeds. Another place to look for things to do is to view the hidden placeholders in list of horse breeds that are for articles yet to be created (works better than dozens of red links). Give me a shout if you need help! Montanabw(talk) 08:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the redirect on Postier Breton‎. The dear little eager beaver who created it seems to log in about once every few months, creating a ton of stubs and red links in her wake, this time she didn't confine herself to "breed" articles, she also did some veterinary medicine stubs that I can't decide if they need to be put up for speedy deletion or if we should try to salvage them (I usually try to salvage, but...). I didn't have the time to research this one, so thanks for doing it! By the way, did you also enroll at Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds? I'm apparently the only active member over there any more, and there is much to do. Montanabw(talk) 04:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Another mission, if you choose to accept it

Check out another new stub, if you'd like: Tchernomor. If it's a real breed, article needs some help and some sources (even Simon and Schuster) May have to Google this one...  ! Montanabw(talk) 04:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tchernomor reply

Hmm. First off, good job finding that Buydenny site at [1] I'm impressed!

As for the Tchernomor article, given that this is yet another one sentence stub by a certain editor with a reputation for doing this sort of breed that isn't really a breed thing before, I think we maybe should redirect it into Budyonny (horse), which, by the way, is in desperate need of a rewrite. (I will correct the infobox, but that's all I have time for at the moment). I would make Chernomor and Tchernomor into redirects (and maybe also Cherkassky) and then use that article you found as a source for the Budyonny article, (as it is tagged as unreferenced, also) incorporating some of its material to correct, expand and clarify the article a bit. (Being careful not to cut and paste, thus triggering a copyvio.) You could probably toss in a sentence about how the Techernomor or Chernomor was an ancestor of the Budyonny, or whatever. It is mentioned in passing, but maybe toss in something about how it was a Cossack horse, whatever... Would that work for you? Hmm. Maybe see if any useful info at Russian Don too, perhaps cross link the two articles.

All of the above being a mission that you may choose to accept or say, "no thanks," or just do something else (grin). If you need help doing anything just give me a holler over on my talk page. Montanabw(talk) 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 05:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Invite to WikiProject Equine

This is the official word: WikiProject Equine was quietly created by someone while the rest of us were endlessly discussing a WikiProject Horse. We have an official project! So let's go with it, and I am officially inviting you to formally join! Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine, add your name to the list and see what you can contribute. If you haven't already joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds or one of the other "child" or "affiliated" wikiprojects at WikiProject Equine, please feel free to do so. Just trying to tag articles with the new templates has awakened me to the fact that there are over 1000 equine articles in Wikipedia! (My watchlist alone is now at something like 700+) There's much to do and plenty for everyone! Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 09:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Tags and templates

Say, thanks for requesting photos for the articles that have none, and also THANK you for adding the WikiProject Horse breeds template also; I'm trying to go alphabetically down the list, but am only at about G (I think the list of horse breeds is well over 200!). While you are doing these tags, perhaps you could also be so kind as to add the {{Equidae}} template to the bottom of each main article as well ? (Goes after all refs and tags, before cats and interwiki links). That would sure be a great help! Also, if you are surfing on non-breed horse articles and want to add the {{Eqtalk}} tag to direct people to WikiProject Equine, that would also be helpful! Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Marbach

Hey, check out Marbach stud. I took out the chunk you wrote for Wurttemberger and moved it to a whole new article, added some stuff from Arabian horse, and have, to my delight, discovered that there is an article in German Wikipedia on the stud that has a bunch of photos, I am also going to run it through Google translation to see if I can glean any more tidbits. You were an inspiration and hope it was okay that I got a little bold and just pulled out the whole section from the other article. Montanabw(talk) 07:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

merges

Feel free to toss any merge tags now that we have that figured out! Montanabw(talk) 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated FYI

Check out the work Countercanter is doing with Heavy warmblood. I kind of like that s/he is listing some minor breeds there that don't have sufficient material for a full article. You will note how I added "Rottaler" to the list of horse breeds as a non-link that cross refs Heavy warmblood. I kind of wish that some of the other breed articles could have started this way, but oh well, would be more work to merge and create all the redirects and cross links than to just leave them as stubs. sigh... Montanabw(talk) 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging

Hey, if you want to find articles to merge, try patrolling the contributions of User:Merrymount. I think this is a kid, and I am trying not to be too hard on her (assuming it's a her, I've been wrong), but lordy, I'm getting tired of trailing after her all over wikipedia. She seems to have a copy of the Bonnie Hendricks book (with 400 "breeds") and is apparently copying from it wholesale (at least, that's my guess, I'm not going to pony up the $$ for the book). I got her broke of the habit of adding a dozen red links to the list of horse breeds and now she is creating articles, which is good, but still requires a lot of watching because she will do random things like move a breed from horse to pony without a source or explanation. On her way to becoming a decent contributor but is taking a lot of babysitting on my part. (help)

But my point (I have a point). There are a couple of articles she made that MIGHT be candidates for merging, but needs some checking of other sources to see if there is a consensus in either direction. They are: 1) Flores pony merge into Timor Pony (when I created or updated the eight articles on the Indonesian breeds, none of my sources mentioned the Flores, doesn't mean it isn't a separate breed, but, well, check it out - I tagged it for a merge) 2) Ob pony merge with Narym Pony the text of the two articles actually suggests they may be sub-groups of the same breed (sort of like the Breton (horse) perhaps??). 3) Balikun into Balikun (horse) seems one article argues it's a pony, the other a horse, may be two different breeds, but I suspect not.

Anyway, those three seem suspicious to me, so if you feel like checking into them do as you see fit. I've been kind of rough on the kid lately, best I tag team off to someone else for a bit (grin). Montanabw(talk) 06:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and the new heads up

The Andalusian horse thing is a LOOOOOONG edit war and I will try to fix that back (the PRE versus "Spanish Horse" thing is another mess, and oh lordy the edit war I got into with that crowd over the FACT that there is Arabian blood in the modern Andalusian, they want to insist their horses are the pure descendants from the cave horses in Lascaux. I'll deal with it.

As for the 10,000 articles on minor horses,go ahead and tag them for notability if you want, and if you think they are really irrelevant, ask for speedy deletion (User:Accounting4Taste LIKES to delete articles, ask for help there if you need it. Tell him I sent you,). Incidentally, if they were all started by User:Merrymount, she's been a little over-enthusiastic all around... If you check her talk page, you will see that I have been leaving messages there for months, she never replies and may be learning a little, but needs to have some appropriate consequences. Her new breed articles are sometimes useful (because we do have a tag for needing them to be created), but I have been spending way too much time in the last two weeks cleaning up all the messes she makes. (Thanks, by the way, for cleaning up the Balikun mess, that was hers too) I'm quite frustrated with her, and as far as I am concerned, let the natural consequences occur! Montanabw(talk) 00:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(groan). Go look at my talk page. We have landed us a "my horse is purer than god himself" fanatic. Grrr. Gee thanks. (grin). May need backup. If you know any friendly admins, have them watchlist the article. Usually these sorts go away in a few days, but can get interesting for a while. Montanabw(talk) 02:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible deletion

Thanks for your note. I've looked at the articles you mentioned; I think the appropriate standard to apply is this one on notability, looking specifically at a part about athletes. I think the author of these articles is suggesting that these horses are athletes -- at least, I could make a case for considering them as athletes -- and thus that standard would probably apply. The only one that I'd have a problem justifying deletion for is the horse that competed in the Olympics -- according to the standard, that's the "highest level of amateur competition" and thus has notability, as near as I can tell.

As far as the other three, yes, you are correct to suggest their deletion, but the operative word is "suggest". The reason why I think deletion is appropriate is simply because there is no way to improve these articles by adding information -- if they didn't compete at the Olympic level, then they're not likely notable. I always like to suggest improvement rather than deletion, but not here. There is no speedy deletion category that's at all appropriate, so there are two other ways you can go. The simplest one is prod, which stands for "proposed deletion". You add the PROD tag to the top of the article, giving your reasons, and follow the directions that the PROD tag indicates -- if the tag lasts five days, and the article isn't improved, then it can be deleted (leave me a note and I'll take care of it). However, what usually happens is that the author of the article gets huffy and deletes the PROD tag, which is a legitimate thing for them to do. If that happens, you can either give up, or you can go to Articles for deletion, aka AfD.

AfD is easier than it looks; it can be quite daunting, but once you get the hang of it, it's easy. What I might recommend is that you look at some articles that are up for deletion to see how it works -- you can even offer your opinions on articles that are up for deletion at AfD. Read up as much as you can first; the community rather disapproves of people who drop by and say "I agree" without giving a reason, and you generally should quote the piece of policy (with a link) that you're suggesting be applied to the article. One way you can get your feet wet easily is by picking out articles about individuals that are up for AfD, reading up on the WP:BIO and WP:Notable standards, and seeing how the articles do when you hold them up against those standards.

So, to boil down my advice here:

  • I suggest adding a PROD tag to the three articles (not the one about the horse that's been in the Olympics). If the PROD tag lives, fine; if not, go to
  • Articles for deletion. If this comes up, let me know and I'll walk you through your first time.

I hope this helps. Thanks for trying to work within the boundaries; I think you're wise to ask for help in unfamiliar territory. And if I've been unclear, or you want further explanation, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If it helps Dana, look at what I did on Ima Cool Skip. By the way, A4T, did I do that correctly? (Answer on my talk page if I screwed it up) Montanabw(talk) 22:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to have been delayed with this and everything else Wikipedian; I've been laid low by a cold/flu for the last few days. The Burke's Boy article now seems to me to be asserting BARELY sufficient notability as winner of "a number of major events" that I would suggest leaving it; it's got reasonable references and is sufficiently encyclopedic that I can't think of any reason for it to go. The other ones will be deleted as soon as I check that the time of the PROD tag has reached five days. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that the PROD tag on Ima Cool Skip was applied correctly and worked the way you wanted it to, so that's great. I gather that this horse wasn't sufficiently important for your standards? My first instinct was that it seemed to be demonstrating a kind of geneologic notability in an industry based on bloodlines, but as you know I'm not very familiar with this area so will defer to your judgment. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Sir Barnaby and Best of All have gone to the big stable in the sky ;-). Let me know if there's anything else with which I can be of service. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hijacking Dana's page. Just so Accounting4Taste knows, the bottom line on Ima Cool Skip and another like it was that basically the article sounded pretty impressive, but the deal was that lots of horses have famous relatives and win some big show events every single year, thus, just like those Eventers that Dana wants tossed, that doesn't mean the horse is notable. It was just full of self-promotion for the horse's breeders, trainers, etc...you have to be sort of a expert in the field to pick up on that stuff, but Ealdgyth is, and once you have the background, it's easy to spot promotional stuff... I'll look over Burke's Boy and let you know my thoughts... Montanabw(talk) 03:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh great goddess of merging

While tagging, I spotted a couple articles with old merge tags on them, if you are interested:

Thanks muchly in advance! If you do merge these, can you also update the list of horse breeds? I usually do this by removing the wikilinking from the redirected article title but keeping it on the list and adding, see (merged article). Seems to prevent it from being recreated again...sigh. Montanabw(talk) 23:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Gradnusibirsk

good catch, I've searched high and low and there aint-no-such-place. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Repeated letters

Guys, congratulations on finishing WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Diacritics. Let's work on repeated letters section! Do you understand what should we do? Can you explain it to me? --PeterCantropus (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for including the piece on the Tb families. I felt that it was important to include at least some of this as the 3 founding stallions were not alone in producing this great breed. There, too, is often confusion in reading catalogues and stud books that needs clarifying. Cgoodwin (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

TB

Let me know when you're done so we don't edit conflict. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

The smile was perfect, those things actually DO work! Montanabw(talk) 04:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't suppose you'd care to wade into the fray? Have you background with hackamores? Care to play? Montanabw(talk) 20:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thoroughbred

Okay, I have sucessfully kicked my ISP into finally fixing my issues. Where do we stand on this article? What needs doing most? It'll be tomorrow before I get to anything serious, but might as well start thinking about what we need. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to look at it after dinner... I'm starving! Ealdgyth | Talk 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
well, we have a review. nothing too terrible, but some rewriting with the controversy section. I took care of some of the stuff, I'll let you fiddle with the others but if you can't, I'll try to take care of it when I get home Monday night. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Article importance scale for WikiProject Equine

Hello. WikiProject Equine is discussing an article importance scale here. Your POV would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Flickr

You can search Flickr using advanced search to find only photos that are Creative-commons licensed. Then, if you upload to Commons, they have a feature where you can run a flickr photo ID through an algorithm to verify that it's a free image (some cc images are still "no commercial use" so while they can occasionally sneak into Wikipedia OK, they can't go into commons.) That's the short version. Hope it helps. Montanabw(talk) 23:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup listings

Hello,

a while ago, you left a question on my talk page regarding listings of articles flagged for cleanup within the scope of WikiProject Equine. At that time, I did not have such listings available, but in the meantime I have improved my methods a bit; see User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thoroughbred

Thoroughbred made GA tonight! Yay! Here's a little toy to put on your user page. {{User Good Articles|#}} and you put the number of GAs you've contributed to in place of the #. Thanks so much for the help! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Indian Country Bred

Hey, just checking to see if you have an independent source for merging the Tibetan pony with the Indian Country Bred? I ask because the Spiti pony and Bhutia Pony articles both talk about how interbreeding (including the addition of Tibetan pony blood) has basically merged those two breeds, but the Tibetan pony article suggested that that breed still retains some individual character. I am just wondering if you made too big a jump there. Note that the FAO's DAD-IS site still lists it as distinct: http://lprdad.fao.org/cgi-bin/EfabisWeb.cgi?sid=2847115b44e6cf3fe4d704a20e313a56,reportsreport8a_50008640 though I couldn't get stats to come up.

Also: http://books.google.com/books?id=1Fthxim_WaEC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=tibetan+pony&source=web&ots=01wVeaXbdV&sig=OsdGBX_uW-WY1ucKiMLPdaDa_p8&hl=en#PPA147,M1 (yes, it's an old article, a lot can change in 70 years or so, but still...)

And, actually, the Oklahoma state web site still has the Bhutia pony as a separate breed, so I wonder if there is a POV in the older edits, especially if Hendricks is the (dubious) source...?

See:http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/horses/bhotia/index.htm (But Okie state lists neither Tibetan nor Spiti ponies. Odd)

International Museum of the Horse, the most reliable source I start from if deciding if a "breed" is really a "breed", seems to be down tonight, I can't get their server to respond, but the link is http://www.kyhorsepark.com/museum/breeds.php?pageid=8

There is a different argument to be made for merging some of these obscure breed stubs for convenience sake, but I guess I err on the side of being careful to declare a breed extinct...? Just my humble opinion. Montanabw(talk) 06:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Would not be impossible that I put on merge tags, in fact, quite likely. International Museum of the Horse lists none of them, including Indian Country Bred, so no help there (darn). I think the Liveforhorses site is acceptable, given that there just is not much available on these obscure breeds and we'll probably never be putting them up for GA. It is "A" source and absent anything better... It actually appears to have decent content. Add that and Okie state and you will have better sources then Hendricks, IMHO. I guess I fully agree that Bhutia and Spiti work well merged, but maybe we should go ahead and restore Tibetan Pony as an article for now, but maybe add some good "see also" links to Indian Country Bred and maybe a mention that there is a lot of crossbreeding going on. As for "hardy little crossbreds," yeah, I sort of agree, though being an "Ay-rab" aficionado myself, I kind of think everything since the four foundations is technically a "crossbred" (LOL and tongue in cheek) so where the line gets drawn, I don't know---but I figure if there has been a more or less consistent breeding population that can go back 50 years or so, I'll take it. Or, put differently, I draw the line somewhere between the Warlander (not a breed, just a crossbred marketing ploy) and, oh, maybe the Virginia highlander, which has at least been around for 40 or 50 years. (Grin) Montanabw(talk) 02:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that works for me. None of these more obscure breed articles will be GA any time soon, so I am not terribly worried if they aren't perfect! You are doing such GREAT work on the overall breed articles cleanup, right at a time when my own gumption is a bit burned out, and I just appreciate all you do! Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Kitty Canutt

If you interested in folding rodeo performers such as Kitty into your Project, may I suggest there are more such folks listed under Category:Rodeo_performers. EraserGirl (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Horse: FA?

Hello, I was wondering if you think it is a good idea to propose horse for featured article. If not, what do you think is missing? Leptictidium (mammal talk!) 13:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. I can lend a hand with the lead and, especially, with the evolution part. I'm afraid I haven't got enough knowledge to help out with the rest, though. Leptictidium (mt) 13:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Leptictidium, the horse article is nowhere ready for even GA, let alone FA. Horrors! The evolution section may need some help, but it is only to be a summary that directs readers to evolution of the horse for more detail... Montanabw(talk) 05:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge stuff- reply

My answers in italics Great work, by the way! Montanabw(talk) 05:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Rodeo and History of rodeo --With great care, but yes. Rodeo itself is a big article and a bit bloated, (I want to move some material there to PRCA) maybe take proposals to the talk page there and we can work together to figure out where to put things. Article gets lots of vandals and periodic hits by the PETA sorts, so must be edited with care...
    • My thought in general was to move most of the history section in the rodeo article to the history article (therefore keeping them separate), and leave just a short summary and a main article link to the history article from the rodeo article. Would this work for you?
      • The problem is that both sections have huge weaknesses. I think you are right, but maybe just let me do the merge because I have already done lot of cleanup in Rodeo...if I sit on it for another week, nag me. Will that work? Montanabw(talk) 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Sounds good.
  • Forehand (horse) and equine forelimb anatomy --Yes, but I wonder if some of the material in Forehand could go into the dressage article? Don't know. Maybe merge both into a new article with a new name that encompasses both skeleton and musculature?? Also, what do we have on hind limbs and hindquarters? We have Back (horse), which sort of encompasses the whole subsection of the anatomy, maybe an example...? Yak more on talk page if you want
  • Horse breaking and natural horsemanship --Yes. Kill horse breaking and put it out of its misery!!!! It's mostly an NH article anyway and people confuse it with the horse training article, which is a lot more solid ('cause I wrote most of that one! LOL!). Putting the better parts into the NH article is the way I'd go. However, I didn't notice merge tags there last I checked? Maybe do a mergeto and a mergefrom on the two articles for another week and if no one complains, then we can go for it!
  • Horse floater and Horse teeth--absolutely yes, go for it, maybe be sure to edit the horse floater and check the source to see if that is UK terminology for an Equine Dentist? (Horse teeth may not discuss equine dentistry much, but it should...)
    • The "source" is actually about regulated and nonregulated industries in the US, and is using the example of unregistered people (as opposed to vets) floating teeth - while never actually using (as far as I could tell) the term "horse floater". Maybe drop a prod tag on it?
      • Doesn't matter to me. Maybe check to see if anything much is linked to it. A redirect for now is probably fine, but if it's orphaned with no links, then a prod tag would be OK with me. Montanabw(talk) 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC) - DONE (As a redirect)
  • Sorrel (horse) and Chestnut (coat) --NO, IMHO, do not merge, toss tags. If we merge them, some idiot will just do up a new article on sorrels, I've had to revert enough people changing "chestnut" to "sorrel" in other articles as it is. They are redundant, but lots of people in QH land have never heard of a chestnut. (Sighing) - DONE
  • Russian Heavy Draft and Soviet Heavy Draft - I could see a page with these two breeds, plus the Vladimir Heavy Draft, Estonian Draft and Lithuanian Heavy Draft, as all of these breeds were formed through USSR state-sponsored breeding programs. Don't know what you would call the page, though... Seems like someone whined when I suggested the merge. I think we need to gather more data. I would really hesitate to roll in the Estonian and Lithuanian articles, I mean, if the Estonians and Lithuanians are like the Norwegians and Swedes, it would take a braver person than I to suggest a merge...LOL!
    • I think I might have been the one who whined... I've got no problem with going either way now. My thought process was that the centralized USSR government basically designed all of these breeds and ordered their development, so even though they have different names (Lithuanian, Russian, etc.), they're really all just variations on a theme that were artificially created over a relatively short time period (rather than being naturally developed over centuries), all for the same purpose and with basically the same breeding programs. IMHO.
      • Can we find a source on any of them? Are they all separate at Okie State or does the International Museum of the Horse site have anything? I would kill for a source that says they are all different names for the same thing. (Sometimes that DAD-IS database of the FAO has that sort of info...)
        • OK, so... The Russian is mentioned by IMH and OSU, the Soviet by DAD-IS and OSU, the Lithuanian by OSU and the Estonian by DAD-IS. There is a statement in the Soviet OSU article that says "In the Baltic Zone, new breeds, the Lithuanian and the Estonian Heavy Draft began to be formed on a different local mare basis." All of the OSU articles are based off of papers pulled from old (1988ish) Soviet records, which of course would have them separated by breed, since that government considered them different breeds. Does this help?
If the government of the nation that created the breed considers them different breeds, then let's stay with that, who are we to disagree? (LOL). I'd kick the merge tags. If you want to toss the source data you found into the respective articles as a ref at the bottom (if you haven't already done so) it might be useful later.
  • Flores pony and Timor Pony - Seem to be different breeds, but not much available on them. These two may be close enough to merge into a new article mentioning both, sort of like Sumba and Sumbawa Pony. If both redirect to the new merge, it will be easy to split them back out later if they grow big...One caveat: People interested in Timor (the location) are kind of nationalistic, there are assorted ethnic clashes there, and thus the Timor pony article gets hit on terminology quite a bit, maybe surf the contributors and see if there are any active non-horse ones in the last few months...? - DONE (I actually just redirected Flores to Timor and moved the info over. The Timor article seems to be the main one, and the Flores article had very little information or reliability to whether it was actually a separate breed.)
  • Narym Pony and Ob pony - Seem to be different breeds, but not much available on them. Ditto. Like Sumba and Sumbawa Pony, new article about both.
    • So what happens if we also toss in Yakut Pony?
      • OH crap, you are making me think! LOL! Let's see if the usual suspects (Okie state, IMH, etc.) have articles on any of them. Be nice to know if anything else is out there.
        • Hmmm...not much out there. OSU has articles on the Ob (very brief, one line) and the Yakut. No one else mentions them. The Ob is listed as part of the "North Russian Pony group", although there is no other mention of what other breeds are in this group. Thoughts?
If independent sources list Ob and Yakut separate, I see no pressing need to merge those two. Wonder if there is more on "North Russian Pony group"? Intriguing. If we can find a source including the Narym, that would be a good title for a merged article. But I guess in absence of a pressing crisis, we can just let the merge tags sit until we find more data? Montanabw(talk) 00:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Old English Black and Shire horse - I seem to recall a discussion on your talk page regarding this a while ago. Was there every any consensus formed? I don't think so, seems like there was some difference of opinion. I'll look into this one and see if my brain recalls the original reason the tags were placed. Possible that the Old English Black was the root of more than just the Shire, which would argue for staying independent...
    • OK, check out Talk:Shire horse, which is apparently where the discussion got cut and pasted to. Also, on the main article page for the Black there is a mention of them being part of the rootstock for the Clydesdale, although this part isn't referenced. If this is true, I would agree that it should remain separate articles. If the Black was simply the precursor to the Shire, then I would vote for a merge.
      • I think for now we should toss merge tags and keep them separate. This is one of those things that will need a lot more research, and I do suspect that the Clydes may share some of the same bloodstock (at least, I have embarrassed myself a couple of times confusing a team Shires with white stockings with Clydesdales...!) - DONE
  • Gotland Pony and Öland horse - Would agree to a merge, with the Gotland page being the main one. Agreed. - DONE
  • Sardinian (horse) and Sardinian Pony - Would agree to a merge, with the Sardinian Horse page being the main one. Yes, just be clear we are talking about two related but not exactly identical breeds. Maybe a cut and paste until we can source the pony bit more...? - DONE
  • Diamond`s Exchange to Jessica Kürten - I would say yes I do not care, if no one else does, go for it - DONE
  • Arko to Nick Skelton - I would say yes - Ditto - DONE

Arabian horse

I moved things around, can you take a quick gander and let me know what you think? Hopefully, I'll be able to work on those fact tags tonight. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to work on a GAN real quick, then do the sources check on Arabian horse. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thoroughbred

Just an FYI that Thoroughbred went up to FAC today with you as a co-nominator. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. No caffeine yet, thanks for catching the misspelling on VT's name. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dana_boomer/Archive_1&oldid=1083581795"