Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:40, 4 January 2013

Equine Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Equine articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	1	1	8	26			36
FL				4			4
FM					8		8
A		1					1
GA	3	2	17	81		1	104
B	4	13	32	116		72	237
C	4	11	62	547		21	645
Start		24	86	1,948		52	2,110
Stub		2	6	2,874	20	43	2,945
List		1	13	82		6	102
Category					1,541		1,541
Disambig					23		23
File					10		10
Portal					1		1
Project					20		20
Redirect			3	88	83		174
Template					191		191
Other					10		10
Assessed	12	55	227	5,766	1,907	195	8,162
Unassessed				3		57	60
Total	12	55	227	5,769	1,907	252	8,222
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 31,606			Ω = 5.22

Archives

... to May 2008 May 2008 to March 2009 March 2009 to August 2010 August 2010 to April 2011 April 2011 to July 2011 July 2011 to...

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Misplaced Pages:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Misplaced Pages talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:07, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

A lot of cool photos

It's me again, I've see on FlickR a lot of cool horses photos with the good licence, but I'm not a specialist of commons (I don't really know how it work). So here's the FlickR gallery : http://www.flickr.com/photos/desertnightcreations/ . You have :

• a lot of saddlebreds
• some arabians with costumes
• Marwaris (http://www.flickr.com/photos/desertnightcreations/7998149799/in/photostream and http://www.flickr.com/photos/desertnightcreations/7998169680/in/photostream )
• Rocky mountain
• Hackney ponies
• Pintos
• Mules
• Shires
• Akhal-tekes
• American shetlands
• Dales
• Kenucky mountain horses
• American miniatures
• Andalusians
• Morab
• World equestrian games 2010
• Belgians
• Highlands
• Fells
• Caspians
• Interesting colours (http://www.flickr.com/photos/desertnightcreations/5970379522/in/photostream) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note here, we already have two pics of that specific stallion (File:Sato, Throroughbred Palomino, sabino, stallion.jpg and File:Sato - Palomino sabino Purebred Thoroughbred Stallion.jpg. Pitke (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Basically, there's an upload wizard at Commons where you can plug in the Flicker ID number and if the copyright is OK, it will partly automate the upload. If the copyright is too restrictive, it won't allow the upload. Montanabw 04:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but commons is all in english and for me it's a little bit difficult. In the Upload wizard usually I have ti precise author, licence, description, etc, etc --Tsaag Valren (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Correction  : I search, I find : http://toolserver.org/~bryan/flickr/upload (now, how does it work ?) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Museum of Polo and Hall of Fame

I am going through the inductees of the Museum of Polo and Hall of Fame. May I add this project to their talkpages?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

How many people are we talking? Probably is suitable. Anyone else have thoughts? Montanabw 21:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully all the inductees. I am working on polo at the moment--it would be great if some of you wanted to help as well. This is why I ask.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

How many is "all"? 50 or 500? :-) Montanabw 21:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like 75 or so, based on the webpage. I have no problem with adding the banner to the talk pages. Are you just creating stubs, or planning to take these articles higher? I'm not a huge polo fan, but wouldn't mind helping out with GA nomination runs and such. Dana boomer (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to take these articles higher, possibly to GA status. So, all inductees from the Museum of Polo and Hall of Fame to start with. Also pages like these ones: U.S. Open Polo Championship and Monty Waterbury Cup. Thank you for helping.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great! Just let me know when/if you get to a place where you need help with touch-up stuff before/during a GA nomination... I don't have the sources, so wont be much help on the writing end :) Dana boomer (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup of dreadful state of horse types cat. & subcats., confusing & confused article titles, and text that goes with them

The horse breeds category, more so than most other such categories for domestic animal breeds, is a total mess.

1. The animal type (here "horse" or "pony") is present and capitalized along with the rest of the breed name when (and only when) it is always included in the breed name for clarity. This is usually the case when:

   A.  it has to be distinguished from another animal with the same breed name (e.g. Hackney Pony and Hackney Horse)

   B.  the name would be jarringly confusing, seeming to refer to something completely different, without the type being included (as in American Quarter Horse, Yorkshire Coach Horse, Norwegian Forest Cat).

2. In all other cases, the type should be dropped entirely, if possible (as in Norfolk Trotter, Thoroughbred and German Shepherd)
3. If disambiguation is required, the type should be converted into a proper, bracketed parenthetical disambiguation, per WP:DAB and WP:AT (as in Dartmoor (pony), Siamese (cat)).
4. Those that are not formal breeds, recognized by one or more fancier/breeder pedigree registries, but rather are landraces, need to be decapitalized (except when containing a proper, e.g., geographical or possessive, name, as in Przewalski's horse), and rewritten to stop making blatant original-research claims that they are breeds rather than landraces. Landraces need to be in a new Category:Horse landraces, under Category:Types of horse. Also, Category:Feral horses should probably be a subcat of the landraces one; I cannot think of any separately identifiable, notable population of ferals that is subject to selective breeding, so they are landraces by definition if they are distinguishable from other horses in any way. In the interim, I've moved Category:Feral horses to Category:Types of horse from Category:Horse breeds, because they are not breeds. A breed is a formal designation and definition of a pedigreed population, produced by selective breeding, subject to a conformation standard as determined by a registry organization; no more, no less, and nothing else.
5. Things like Category:Color breeds is not very helpful. Do not confuse coat colors, body types, etc., with breeds. That category is also misnamed because it's missing "horse" – people may try to put pigs, cats, etc. in there mistakenly. Few people but fanciers of these colors consider them breeds, for good reason.q The notion of a non-pedigree-based breed is weird and will be confusing to too many people. It would make much more sense to have a Category:Horse coat colors and patterns or Category:Horse coat types, and put these articles in there. The color breed article is sufficient to document the odd notion that some people call a horse a particular "breed" simply because of how it happens to be colored. There's a reason that the major registries don't do this, and that this silliness is perpetuated by only by small independent, specialty registries.

Over 100 horse/pony articles need one or more of these sorts of cleanup. I've started with Category:Horse breeds originating in England, but have more pressing things to do. Someone from WP:EQUINE needs to take this on. See Category:Cat types and its subcats for how precisely this kind of cleanup has been performed there.

In the interim, I've filed two Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests with regard to point #1 above, to move New Forest pony to New Forest Pony (cf. Norwegian Forest Cat) and Hackney pony to Hackney Pony (cf. Hackney Horse). I've already moved those in this England category that needed disambiguation to names like Lundy (pony), and left as they were those that for clarity need to keep the type in the name (Yorkshire Coach Horse and Hackney Horse). I have also challenged, on their talk pages, the notion that Exmoor (pony) and Dartmoor (pony) are formal breeds at all; everything in the articles so far suggests they are informal landraces. I've also filed two CFRs, one to move Category:Individual mares to Category:Individual female horses (because there is no Category:Individual fillies), and to move Category:Influential Quarter horse broodmares to Category:Influential American Quarter Horse broodmares because "Quarter horse" is not the name of the breed. And I created Category:Individual male horses and moved the articles that belong in it out of Category:Male horses, and tagged the new category as badly needing to be populated, with {{Popcat}}. And I fixed the backward relationship between Category:Types of horse and Category:Horse breeds. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 09:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

One small point - in American horse circles - "Quarter Horse" is the common name for the beed. Aren't we supposed to use the "common name"? And if a breed has a stud book - I think we can consider them a formal breed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You'd have to take that first issue up as a WP:RM at Talk:American Quarter Horse, but expect resistance, since that article title has been the stable for a long time. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't say to use the most common name in local English, but the most common name in reliable sources generally. See, e.g., English billiards, which is what the game is called for the most part, worldwide; in the UK itself, it is simply called "billiards", and the phrase "English billiards" is very rare there, being seen as redundant locally. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

On the second issue, I think that's a question worth exploring, but more broadly than just for horses. Some friends and I could make up a new studbook for "black horses with crossed eyes" but that wouldn't make such horses a "breed" in any sense that Misplaced Pages could possibly care about, even if we were intentionally generating cross-eyed foals. The entire notion of "color breeds" flies in the face of what "breed" has consistently meant in animal husbandry for at least the last couple of centuries. Existence of a studbook simply means that some parties have gotten together to create one, nothing more, and it brings up a lot of WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR questions to treat coat patterns as "breeds" simply because some random assortment of fanciers has tried to advance a coat pattern as a "breed".

My initial take on this, based on how coat patterns are handled for other domestic animals, is to suggest we convert these articles to coat pattern articles, and for each one with a studbook and/or fancier organization, have a short section explaining that thus-and-such group has created a studbook for the coat pattern, and has advanced it as a "color breed", but that this is different from the normal interpretation of "breed". That would be a balanced approach that would not confuse readers but would also not bash fanciers of "color breeds".

Another concern, across domestic animal articles, is that there are more and more breeders all the time, all of them looking to make a name for themselves, and often advancing their own "new breed". They are not notable in most cases. The WP:GNG provides a baseline for determining this on a case by case basis, but a shorthand way of approaching it is to simply ask if any major fancier/breeder organization (international, or even just national in cases of countries with large, strong and long-established fancy/husbandry organizations) formally recognizes the breed for pedigree and show purposes, at least provisionally/experimentally. If not, it's highly unlikely that it's notable as an alleged breed, and pushing them as such on WP is very likely to be a WP:NPOV and WP:NOR problem. I've recently WP:PRODed Layanese for precisely this reason. The "article" on this "breed" basically amounts to promotional spam by/for the breeder. This looks to be the case with the "color breed" articles, too. Breeders and their minor organizations appear to have hijacked what should be straightforward color coat articles, (cf. Tabby (cat), etc., outside the horse-space), and turned them into promotion/advocacy pages about an alleged "color breed". — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Apps (Appaloosa) and the Paint Horse Association however, would disagree. In the US (where the majority of Apps, at least, are) those are the dominant meanings of those color breeds, and quite arguably, the Appaloosa IS a breed that just happens to have color also. Paints too, in the US - they are colors that are also a breed type (i.e. QH type). I'm pretty sure that in Europe (from my reading) you'd either call a paint a pinto or a piebald/skewbald. So it's pretty clear that those two breeds should stay at their current names. I'd be opposed to turning the Paint Horse article into just a color description - that can be handled with the various patterns - overo, tobiano, splashed, etc. With Appaloosas - they pretty much ARE the color breed and the color pattern is the breed - the few European breeds have totally different ancestry and descents. And I hardly think the Exmoor Pony Society (founded in 1921 here) is just a "some parties have gotten together to create one" ... it's been around a while, after all! I'm all against covering every single tiny group of fanciers - but if a stud book and/or society sticks around for almost 90 years, we have to consider that a good indication that we've moved beyond landrace and are into breed territory. To be clear - I'm fine with covering the palomino color pattern at Palomino - and the various organizations that register them on their own pages, but you can't sweep all the color "breeds" into one camp or the other - there needs to be some actual looking at the facts on the ground and what usage is. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE OH GOD NO NO NO! WikiProject Equine (WPEQ) has a longstanding consensus on the article naming conventions. You don't understand the issues and there are MULTIPLE issues here (among them, the naming of individually named horses! Can you at least PLEASE leave ALL these articles alone as we have 350-400 horse breed articles that are going to be affected. You don't understand the nature of horse breeds within the equine world and all your category changes are going to make an OR problem go from bad to worse. Please, please, please, withdraw this here. I'm begging you! Montanabw 23:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Take a cue from Ealdgyth, above, WP:DONTPANIC, and please just engage in normal discussion please (cf. your own talkheader about psychodrama). I already said clearly that I just did the one English breeds category as an illustration and wasn't going to do any more because this is the equine project's job and I have other fish to fry. To reiterate some of what I said on my own talk page (I agree centralizing discussion here is a good idea): I disagree with your characterization of my edits as destructive, but recognize that you are objecting to them, and am happy to stop and discuss. These articles and categories are not in a stable, consistent state, and WP:EQUINE does not WP:OWN them. They are grossly inconsistent and messy, in their substandard and confusing naming, in their misleading and sometimes counterfactual and/or biased content language, and in their sloppy, incorrect categorization. A large number of them have basic factuality problems, like presenting landraces as formal breeds, uncritically mislabeling as "breeds" coat colors/patterns that are not breeds but just have some random yahoos with a studbook claiming they're a breed (see above – I clearly recognize that in some cases they really are breeds). Somewhere around half of them that I've looked at have incorrect disambiguation style that violates WP:AT and WP:DAB. There are many other problems.

You say "We have had a longstanding, stable (excuse the pun) consensus on breed naming conventions, categorization and other issues", but it sure doesn't look like it. The fact that your project has settled on being satisfied with such a confused mess that violates several policies, and doesn't like its boat rocked doesn't mean no one's going to rock the boat. Even if it was not a mess, as long as it directly conflicts with WP:AT and other major policies and guidelines, all you have is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which is overridden by site-wide rules anyway, as a matter of policy (and previous ARBCOM decisions that rein in recalcitrant wikiprojects). If you want to make a case that my attempts at cleanup have been unhelpful (my "changes are going in the wrong direction" as you put it), feel free to do so, and maybe you are right. I don't think you can make any kind of convincing case that a major cleanup effort isn't needed.

I would most like to see a) the term breed (in article text and categories) limited to formal breeds recognized as such by major, long-standing organizations; b) landraces properly distinguished from them; and c) redundant, improperly disambiguated titles like "Exmoor pony" done properly as "Exmoor (pony)", like every other topic, including all other animal breed topics, do. (Hint: If such an article ever uses a construction like "The Exmoor is..." then it is obviously safe to disambiguate this way; if the type of animal is always included because the name would be confusing without it, then the type is part of the breed name, should be in the title and should be capitalized – the American Quarter Horse and Norwegian Forest Cat have to be named this way or they sound like coinage and woodlands.) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You would have made a lot more progress had you come here BEFORE changing a bunch of articles and then "salting" them so they could not be moved back. You are also incorrect about the need to always dab with parentheses. There is room in the MOS for other naming, and in these cases, many breed societies, particularly the pony breeds DO name the breed the X horse or the X pony (i.e. Arabian Horse Association, American Paint Horse Association, Welsh Pony and Cob Society, etc...) most of these British pony breeds also ARE in fact recognized by some organization (among others, the FAO for certain, in fact they go overboard at times, but also many national organizations) So, until you have gone through the material breed by breed and know what you are talking about, you really need to lay off. Your "landrace" theory is interesting, and in theory you make a decent case for it, but as I said, the term is not widely used in the horse world, so to say "breed X is a landrace" is as OR as calling it a "breed" unless you can do a bit of research and show us your evidence. Montanabw 17:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear! The Exmoor Pony, Dartmoor Pony, etc. are the recognised breed names. Most of the British horse and pony breed societies have been established for a good long time, and many have daughter societies all around the world. Please don't just go changing everything around! Pesky (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Current consensus explanation

OK, for those who consider the above to be TLDR, here is the current consensus at WPEQ:

1. A horse "breed" is a horse breed if the article passes WP:Notability standard, while it is true that a lot of people try to create "designer breeds" that are a fancy crossbred, we DO carefully apply WP:NOTABILITY to these and have had several articles hotly contested. Generally, if a breed appears in a "horse breeds" encyclopedia and/or is in some fashion "recognized" by a multi-breed sanctioning organization, we will allow the article. For example, two that are in the "gray area" are Warlander and Moyle horse. Montanabw 23:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

   I've seen articles already just looking at one category that do not seem to qualify, yet in their prose use the term "breed" and are categorized as such. This is a WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR problem for sure, and in some cases may be a WP:COI/WP:SPAM issue, if edited by proponents of new or "designer" breed. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

   You can certainly nominate these, individually for AfD or see if you can find a RS that supports your "designer breed" theory, proposing such a category and see if we can find the source material to justify it, but I doubt you will succeed in finding sources - We must live with WP:V and not go OR in the other direction. Montanabw 17:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

   On that note, be aware I fought and lost an AfD on Moyle horse (see talk) and I'm also not a fan of seeing articles on stuff like the Georgian Grande Horse or Warlander either, I think the first is a remnant of a single person's crossbreeding program and the other two are, IMHO, modern designer crossbreds. However, having fought and lost on Moyle horse, I've rather given up, though I have managed to AfD amd keep some other stuff from being recreated. However, these aren't the Eriskay pony. Montanabw 17:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

2. A "type" is not necessarily a landrace nor a single breed. In most cases, such as the warmblood, a "type" is simply a grouping of horse breeds with similar traits that horse people refer to with a collective term for ease of categorization. Another example is gaited horse. A few other things may get lumped in here as a catchall, such as bronco Montanabw 23:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

   Sure. The cats and dogs projects and others uses the same terminology. But I don't see that this project is even recognizing that landraces exist, in articlespace or categoryspace, and it seems to me so far, just looking at the English breeds category that some landraces are not being categorized and described as such, but as formal breeds. I could be wrong about this, but if I am that just means that the articles need to be clarified so that why it's a breed and not a landrace is actually clear. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

   The existence of breed societies dedicated to preserving each breed is not enough? However, more to the point, can you provide sources other than your own WP:SYNTH that these are classified by biologists as landraces? Montanabw 17:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

3. The "landrace" issue is controversial in the horse world. Essentially, while the feral horse "breeds" may have landrace traits, they are generally not called "landraces" within the equine community and so it is as much OR to call them "landraces" as "breeds." In particular, there are a number of semi-feral horse breeds that have considerable human intervention in selective breeding, even though they also live in a semi-wild state. the Camargue horse is an example of this. Montanabw 23:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

   Then these need to be properly described and classified on a case by case basis. This project's penchant for lumping everything into overbroad categorizations is not helpful and ultimately is not encyclopedic. The term landrace is a general biology term that applies to all plants and animals, and we have reliable sources for its definition and the breadth of its applicability; it is not at all original research, by any stretch of the imagination, to apply it to horse varieties that qualify, just because horse fanciers don't use it all that much. By way of analogy, if AKC decides tomorrow to use the term natural regional type to refer to landraces of dogs, WP's work is done if it simply notes this fact and moves on; it would be gross WP:UNDUE weight to refuse to properly categorize these varieties as landraces on such a basis, and would violate WP:V, too. I'm working toward a Category:Landraces, because this is an overarching topic of interest to plenty of people, and it would be absurd to omit horses from it. NB: I never suggested applying the term to feral populations that are in fact selective bred as human-controlled breeds. I wasn't certain their were any, but there clearly are, and that's great; they're not landraces. They're a bit comparable to the feral parrot populations of L.A. and Orange County, California, most of which are still of an identifiable breed (that will change over time, because they are not being selectively bred and managed, and some of these species can hybridize). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

   Categories for navigation purposes are inherently a bit "overbroad" unless we want to have Category:Horse breeds recognized within by the United States Equestrian Federation but not by the British Horse Society with two spinoff alternative registries formed by people pissed off that their horses weren't included in the stud book. (Grin) Horse breeds don't have an AKC, there is no universal (or national) recognition group that defines what a breed is or is not. The USEF once tried to fill that role, but it is mostly discipline-focuesd: too many breed groups spun off and it hasn't been a home for all breeds since sometime in the 1970s. I would have no problem cross-categorizing some "breeds" as "landraces" but until we have an RS that says "horse X is a landrace" I don't feel such should be an exclusive category and the "breeds" removed from "breeds." Montanabw 17:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

4. Breed categories: At WPEQ, we have grudgingly allowed the "breed by nation" categories (because we argued against them and lost), but want all the breeds to remain in the main breed cat as well. We think the "by nation" issue is a real problem because, just for an example, the Lipizzan has five different nations claiming origin status, based on the multiple stud farms that contributed foundation bloodstock. So we are kind of letting the "by nation" promoters do whatever they want, so long as the main horse breeds category stays. Montanabw 23:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

   Understood (I'm reminded of an argument is submarine movie). I agree on all that. The main breed category does need to have them all in it (I fixed this recently with cats). The country ones are a pain because of the problem you pointed out, but too many people really want them. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

   Whew! We agree on that! Hooray! Montanabw 17:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

5. Naming: Because we have WP's capitalization conventions, the dab situation AND multiple individually named horse "biographies" (those tagged by WikiProject horse racing are probably in the thousands) we have come up with the following consensus for naming:

1. Individually named horses (e.g. Secretariat (horse) are given parentheses per WP's standard DAB protocol where needed.
2. Horse equipment is also disambiguated per WP's standard dab protocol, though this is not consistent. (e.g. Bit (horse)
3. Horse breed articles will be named by the breed alone if there is no need for disambiguation. (e.g. Thoroughbred) This usually applies to horse breeds, not ponies
4. if there IS a dab issue, then "horse" or "pony", lower case, is added (e.g. Arabian horse, Shetland pony). Most pony breeds have "pony" as part of their name.
5. If the word "horse" or "pony" is part of the name, so that it sounds ridiculous without (e.g. American Quarter Horse), then the word "horse" or "pony" is capitalized. This is seldom needed with horse breeds, but frequently needed with pony breeds.
6. However, previous editors have created a shitstorm over capitalizing "Pony" in the pony articles per MOSCAPS, so we just finished a round of making them all lower case again. Montanabw 23:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Clear as mud?? Montanabw 23:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Clear, but problematic in a few places. Individual horses: Yes, makes sense. Equipment, right. Breed alone, right, but several pony articles were already done this way, and there's no compelling reason not to do them all this way when possible, as all other topics do, including other domestic animals and even horses (it's actually a matter of policy at WP:AT to use the shortest name and not disambiguate when not necessary). Your DAB solution is substandard, and that's a non-trivial problem; because it doesn't match what, well, everyone everywhere else on WP is doing, it's would always result in conflict and confusion, and it clearly is a WP:Principle of least astonishment problem as well as a direct conflict with WP:AT and WP:DAB, and thus with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (i.e., you don't get to make up your own rules that buck a broader site-wide consensus on how to handle something like disambiguation style). Capitalized "Horse" and "Pony" when needed, right. Complaints about it: Yes, they'll happen, for now anyway. MOSCAPS is unclear on breeds. It's something I'm addressing very clearly, including with horse examples, in WP:Manual of Style/Organisms (draft, but nearing formal proposal quality now). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: I'm sorry I've inadvertently "picked a fight" with this project. Antagonism isn't my goal; encyclopedic veracity (foremost) and consistency (secondarily) are. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 00:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

PPS: If "Arabian horse" is being used instead of "Arabian (horse)" simply because of your "Seabiscuit (horse)" convention, that strikes me as an inappropriate overreaction to a perceived but not actually evidenced confusion problem. Even if it were to prove to be a serious one, the solution per naming policy is to disambiguate better (e.g. "Seabiscuit (racehorse)") not throw out the DAB baby with the bathwater by ignoring it and making up your own new disambiguation style that no one else will recognize and many editors will interpret as an obvious error and try to fix. If it works for cats, dogs, sheep, pigs, guinea pigs, etc., etc., as well as non-biological topics, it will work fine for horses, too. And if "Arabian (horse)" supposedly wouldn't work because someone might confuse it with an individual horse (really, the exact opposite is much more likely), then "bit (horse)" wouldn't be viable, either. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 01:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for racheting down the heat. But I REALLY wish you had discussed this first before you moved all those articles. Unfortunately, (racehorse) doesn't always work, either, as animals "change careers" - For example, Bask was a race horse in Poland, a show horse in the USA, and then a major breeding stallion. But even so, if you want to do that, take it up with WikiProject horse racing, as they have most of those articles. You'll be renaming well over 1000, I think. Also will have to discuss if "race horse" is one word or two (I think there's a US/UK English thing with that) So if you really want to do so, go over there and Good Luck with that. Montanabw 17:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• As for inconsistency, since I came on board in 2006, when breed names WERE all over the place, we have worked very diligently to REMOVE all "Breed X (horse)" names and make them "Breed X horse" - We FINALLY got all of these fixed this year and had near-total consistency on this - until you started moving them back. We have some capitalization inconsistency still, but I think that's a no-win - I for one would be perfectly fine with Title Case (Arabian Horse, Shetland Pony), but the MOS capitalization gods have periodically raised hell with us when we have done so (As in New Forest Pony/pony), so we have been trying to move the articles to "horse" or "pony" being lower case, to please the "consistency" capitalization gods, only digging in to keep capitalization on things like American Quarter Horse. I'm not going to fight that battle, been there, done that. Tired of moving and re-moving capital letters on 300 articles. Montanabw 17:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Contrarian comment

Personally, I'm not very keen on wikiprojects setting their own internal rules on naming, spelling, style, notability &c because, all too often, the bits that agree with broader enwiki policy are redundant, and the bits that don't agree cause lots of unnecessary drama. In this particular case, we have the Misplaced Pages:Article titles policy, and I think that policy does a pretty good job.
It looks like there have been several moves like this:

• Shire horse → Shire (horse);
• Dartmoor pony → Dartmoor (pony);

... and so on. The new titles comprehensively fail the Misplaced Pages:Article titles policy; they are neither natural, nor are they commonly used by sources, nor are they likely search terms. Mass moves of naturally-disambiguated titles to parenthetically-disambiguated titles are bizarrely inappropriate and do a great disservice to readers. They should be moved back. bobrayner (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not contrarian, and I think it's something SMcCandlish will need to take into consideration. It's always nice to have Misplaced Pages:Article titles on your side.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Project-Class equine pages
• NA-importance equine pages
• WikiProject Equine articles