Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ealdgyth (talk | contribs) at 13:35, 2 March 2015 (→Information is not the same: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Equine Mid‑importance This article 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Horse breeds task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Agriculture: Livestock Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Livestock task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Capitalisation of Mustang

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. I recently changed "Mustang" to "mustang" throughout this article. An editor who I have the very highest respect for and I certainly will not fall out with over this has reverted my edit. I am opening up the discussion as to whether "mustang" should have an uppercase M or not. If this has been discussed before, please could you indicate where.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I see it being capitalized/capitalised both ways. I'm slightly inclined to making it lower case/lowercase because, unlike a Clydesdale for example, it's not a breed. Is there some official organization governing horse designations? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And "Clydsedale" is a proper name for an area in Scotland - therefore I have no problem with that having a capital "C". Is there a reason for mustang horses having an uppercase "M"?__DrChrissy (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess people tend to think of them as a horse breed, like the Morgan horse or Appaloosa, which are capitalized (in their articles at least; I'm not a horse person). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Another use of the name is lowercase Mustang (military officer). Mlpearc (open channel) 02:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned HERE consensus is to let it be until a full RfC happens on the capitalization or not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

My reason for raising the issue is a general WP MOS found here which I have copied below. Is mustang exempt from this?

Common names Lower-case initial letters are used for each part of the common (vernacular) names of species, genera, families and all other taxonomic levels (bacteria, zebra, bottlenose dolphin, mountain maple, bald eagle), except where they contain a proper name (Przewalski's horse, Amur tiger, Roosevelt elk), or when such a name starts a sentence (Black bears eat white suckers and blueberries).

As of May 2014, wikiprojects for some groups of organisms are in the process of converting to sentence case where title case was previously used. Some articles may not have been changed yet (this may still be true of bird articles, a few groups of insect articles and some plant ones, as well as a few on amphibians and reptiles).

Names of groups or types The common name of a group of species or type of organism is always written in lower case (except where a proper name occurs): New World monkeys, slime molds, rove beetles, great apes, mountain dogs, Van cats This also applies to an individual creature of indeterminate species.

__DrChrissy (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think mustang is either a species or a breed, so neither of those is directly applicable; the lowercase for groups of types does seem more fitting. But since it's overwhelmingly lowercase in sources, there should be no question. Furthermore, the cited sources mostly use lowercase, and it's hard to find any book that uses uppercase. Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, style guides sometimes make an explicit example of it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that the issue hinges on the point already raised twice above: is this a breed? Breed names are invariably capitalised here, as in almost all reliable sources. The issue is slightly complicated by the fact that the organisation responsible for them, the BLM, doesn't use the term "mustang". Thus the statement in the lead that "the United States Congress recognized Mustangs ..." is not in any way supported by the source cited, the The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, which does not mention mustangs at all.

The USDA Agricultural Research Service reports two breeds to DAD-IS, the Spanish Mustang and the Wild Mustang. There seem to be various other, more specific, mustang populations, including the Cerbat Mountain Mustang, Kiger Mustang, Pryor Mountain Mustang, Sulphur Springs Mustang and so on, which would suggest that the mustang is not a breed but a group of breeds like, say, fat-tailed sheep, and would thus not be capitalised here according to our customary usage.

Sources are mixed: Monty Roberts uses lower case throughout Shy Boy; Edwards (pp. 216–17) lists it as a breed and uses upper case, as does Dutson; Hendricks can't make up her mind, even within one paragraph; Lynghaug uses uc when the word is part of a breed name, lc when it stands alone. All in all, that seems to be the best solution, and would have my vote if there were ever an RfC. Then perhaps some effort could be put into improving the article instead of fiddling about with trivial style issues? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this what you did with your recent edit? And anyone is welcome to improve the article... Omnedon (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I repeat what I have already stated above. My question arises from the MOS here which states "The common name of a group of species or type of organism is always written in lower case". It is totally irrelevant whether the mustang is a recognised breed or not, it is a "type of organism" and therefore should be lowercase. If this is to be ignored, then there is simply no point in having the MOS.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with DrChrissy Mlpearc (open channel) 15:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I would have no objection to capitalized when used as a breed name, as Spanish Mustang and Wild Mustang. But more often wild mustang is used generically (see n-grams, so care is needed. Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, your complaint "Thus the statement in the lead that 'the United States Congress recognized Mustangs ...' is not in any way supported by the source cited" is something I had already fixed by quoting the source more accurately; maybe it was in the same edit you reverted even though you seem to agree with it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The statute ways "wild horse" but it means Mustangs - it was written in 1971, so the language is archaic- just like our US statutes say "Indian" and not "Native American." I can provide sources, but it's complicated to explain, as legalese often is. But I can live with the direct quote. Montanabw 06:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; it certainly does not mean a species of wild horse; there are none in North America, only in Asia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  01:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion – Someone should add a section about breeds, where it can be mentioned that some authors capitalized Mustang as a breed name, but that there are other more accepted breed names for various subtypes, or however you call them. Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the Mustang is the breed, the other stuff are assorted substrains. Montanabw 06:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"Substrain" isn't a word, and there's no source suggesting such a thing about these horses. Mustangs (lower-case) are several feral populations of horses, from which some actual breeds (selectively-bred, controlled, pedigreed populations) have been intentionally and recently derived, and which have their own breed names, like Kiger Horse or Kiger Mesteño depending on breed registry. Mustangs themselves are not a breed, even if some horse breed encyclopedias list them as if they were. Most cat encyclopedias also list "moggies" (i.e. "mongrel", non-purebred domestic shorthair cats) as if they were a breed, but they are not either. Similarly, the The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards has entries on a wide variety of vaguely billiards-related games, like bagatelle and even bowling and golf (very, very vaguely related) but this doesn't make them formally varieties of billiards per se, but simply of interest to the same reader base (or at least the same author). Don't confuse a desire by some publication's editors (including this one) to provide information about domestic animal populations that aren't really breeds per se in the same format as articles on breeds, with reliable sourcing that a population provably constitutes an actual breed under any useful definition or sense of that word. It's a silly notion, like declaring the feral cats that infest my neighborhood, and which have a somewhat limited gene pool, to be a "breed".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  01:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• OK, I'm late to this party, but yes, the capitalization of breeds in general and Mustangs/Brumbies/ whatever in particular is a long debated issue, I've been here eight years, it's one of those things that's hard to track down which page and in which archive, but it's been a thing that's happened over and over. Consensus was reached at WikiProject Equine to capitalize all breed names as proper nouns because, for one thing, it ended the constant drama of why one breed was capitalized and another not. But as for the "breed" question, the Mustang is not a species or subspecies, it is a landrace breed with multiple strains (the Pryors, Sulphurs, Kigers, etc., are regionally distinct populations. They aren't separate breeds. (The USA DAD-IS list is, by the way, terrible - it includes stuff that is not a breed and excludes a lot of things that are...) There is no such thing as a "Wild Mustang" - that's just a colloquialism - Mustangs are not wild horses, they are feral horses) Montanabw 06:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• To clarify: Mustangs are not a separate species of horse. They are a feral animal, a landrace breed if you will, and as such are subject to US Federal law protection. All "breeds" are simply preservation breeding in domestication of certain strains captured from the "wild" and the descendants thereof - where people have given them names and numbers. I think that pretty much any Mustang from the BLM can get "registered" with one of these. Montanabw 06:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for finally conceding that it's a landrace. >;-) Legal protection of a population has nothing to do with whether something is a "breed" or not, much less a capitalised proper noun. Numerous species and subspecies are legally protected, and we do not capitalize any of them here (except where they contain a proper name, like "Florida" in Florida panther). The concepts are unrelated.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  01:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the consensus is to follow MOS:CAPS and sources. A long-forgotten agreement to defer fixing the case problem, as I said in my edit summary on reverting your revert, is not a reason to not fix it now. Sources do not support treating mustang as a breed name in general; in any particular use where it specifically means a breed, of course, it could be capitalized to so indicate. Dicklyon (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And consensus is evolving. I was offline for several days. MOSCAPS also changes a whole bunch, and anyway, breeds are not species. It is not "an agreement to defer fixing the case problem," it is a consensus that breed names are proper nouns. There is mixed opinion out in the real world, but as a rule, breed names are capitalized. Montanabw 06:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please indicate a page at a higher level than a breed article where consensus has been reached that a breed should be capitalised.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Montana, you need open up a bit to the possbility that you're bucking standard WP style here. Is there any other place where we declare something a breed and capitalize it when 90% of sources use lowercase? Seems like an open and shut case. If there's a discussion about this that we need to be informed by, please link it; otherwise it seems like just you. Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Animals are not proper nouns; groups of animals are not proper nouns. This should absolutely not be capitalized. Red Slash 00:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the widespread approval of lowercase, I've reverted Montanabw's capitalization again. Dicklyon (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see widespread approval here. I reverted it back to longstanding consensus unless an Rfc that specifically deals with the spelling decides otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

How many people's time should we waste? The hullabaloo over bird capitalization took years before inevitably reflecting common usage. Sure, file an RfC if you so desire, but I want everyone's time back after consensus determines once again that reliable sources are what we should use when deciding how to write the encyclopedia. Red Slash 04:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Count me as agreeing with that general approval, too. But we don't need to count votes; we have a site-wide guideline on capitalisation, MOS:CAPS, and another on life forms, MOS:LIFE, both of which tell us not to capitalise this. There is zero burden of proof on anyone to show some new consensus against capitalising this particular instance; it's the other way around.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  01:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

When I look back to this article in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, etc... Mustang is capitalized. That my friend is longstanding consensus at wikipedia. To up and change it based on a few editors in this conversation seems wrong. I see it capitalized in many sources and non-capitalized in many sources. But when it's been a certain way for 8 years I think it's only fair not to simply bludgeon through a change. I know wikipedia does that more often these days but that doesn't make it right. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Longstanding concensus can change. The MOS states "As of May 2014, wikiprojects for some groups of organisms are in the process of converting to sentence case where title case was previously used. Some articles may not have been changed yet (this may still be true of bird articles, a few groups of insect articles and some plant ones, as well as a few on amphibians and reptiles)." We are seeing things change. Or, are we choosing to ignore MOS?__DrChrissy (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. We're not changing anything "based on a few editors in this conversation". This conversation in the broader sense has been rehashed for over nine years, and those in favor of capitalisation of names of groups of animals did not gain consensus for the practice even after truly massive WP:FAITACCOMPLI actions to force the capitalisation all over the place. Re: "Did horse people come to some agreement about ignoring the MOS?": It wouldn't matter if they (we – I'm in this wikiproject, too) did so. As a matter of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, wikiprojects do not get to make up their own rules in defiance of site-wide general guidelines and policies. If they/we really wanted to capitalise the names of all domestic animal populations, that would require a major change to MOS:LIFE. Not likely to happen. If anything, the persistence of certain parties in pushing on this is likely to backfire, and lead to an RfC that concludes against capitalising not only feral populations, but formal, standardized breeds as well. This very page is rife with objections to such capitalisation, as are most previous relevant RfCs and RM debates. I.e., one should stop kicking the sleeping dog in an unrelenting attempt to get one's way on every specialist style point, or one will not like the eventual outcome and will make that outcome probably inevitable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  01:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no justification for capitalising mustang unless it is a brand of car. Definitely lower case. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Away from home - I'll respond when I return. (Ched 104.230.45.73 (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm cross-posting this to WT:MOS.

Should this article refer to its subject as "Mustangs" or "mustangs"? For example,

• "A Mustang is a free-roaming horse..."
• "A mustang is a free-roaming horse..."

Thank you for your consideration. Red Slash 17:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment here

• mustang. This is not even remotely different than Wild boar, African wild dog, Wildcat, etc., all of which are uncapitalized in running text (i.e., except at the beginning of a sentence). Sources (see above) commonly leave "mustang" uncapitalized. In addition, a reaaaaaaally heavily discussed parallel RfC a few months ago affirmed that we don't capitalized animals (except "the African wild dog", of course). See that RfC here. Let's not re-fight that fight. Red Slash 17:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• This article has been capitalized for 8 years ... and this isn't a species, it's a breed. Montanabw 09:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In April 2007, the first attempt I see to move toward consistent case was this diff, toward lowercase. Then in May 2007, with nothing mentioned on the talk page about capitalization or proper name (see Talk:Mustang/Archive_1), Montanabw asserted that it's a proper name and went through capitalizing it, in this diff, in the same edit that introduced the mangled quote in the lead that I recently fixed. I'm sorry it took me almost 8 years to notice. Not my area. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Lowercase mustang is the only possibility consistent with MOS:CAPS. Around 90% of sources treat this as a generic, not a proper. Look at any sources; for example, with book n-grams one can construct queries that separate the horses from the cars with an almost perfect capitalization difference. Dicklyon (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Lowercase mustang, unless it is a recognized breed. Even then I'm not comfortable with it, but willing to follow what has become the standard. SchreiberBike talk 23:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Horse breeds don't have the equivalent of the AKC to define who is or is not a "recognized" breed organization, and there are a number of feral landrace breeds with no formal registry. But to sort out the line is synth on our part, so we tend to rely on listings in breed encyclopedias or some sort of legal acknowledgement, both of which exist here. Montanabw 09:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Not a criticism of previous editor, but where does it say on Misplaced Pages that breeds should be capitalised?__DrChrissy (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Response: It doesn't, the practice appears to defy MOS:LIFE, and whether we'll continue the capitalisation is an open question (many oppose it, and it's not common outside the specialist press - breeder & fancier publications), but it is in fact the status quo with breed articles. I hover around neutral on the matter, myself; the rationales for capitalising breed names are different from those for capitalising common names of species (which we do not do, per the huge WP:BIRDCON RFC – this is the direct shortcut to the discussion Red Slash referred to above, in the MOS archives). I've touched on some of these differences at User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names#Capitalization of breeds and cultivars.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Examples vary and I see inconsistent capitalization even within a single book: and ] (search for "Mustang") But at any rate, breeds aren't species. I agree with lower case for species as a general guideline (though not so sure for birds, where real-world use appears to differ from the outcome of BIRDCON), but I get real frustrated when people can't tell the difference between a species and a breed or landrace. We can debate capitalization of breeds some more if people really want to do so, but just so we are clear that these are two totally different things. Montanabw 09:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• @DrChrissy:, none taken. It is not stated anywhere, but it has become common practice and no one has felt strongly enough to argue against what are likely strong feelings. Defining what I called a "recognized breed" among dogs, goldfish, horses, pigeons, etc. would be a difficult project. SchreiberBike talk 02:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• SchreiberBike is right that sometimes it's a quagmire to define "breed" - you can use DNA to verify parentage, and you can use DNA to identify common ancestors, but in between, it's fraught. Montanabw 09:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Lower-case "mustang" per both MOS:CAPS and MOS:LIFE, not only here but also at Kiger Mustang and any other such secondary article on mustangs. In reference to groups of horses, it is not properly capitalised, as mustangs are not a formal, standardised breed (which would be something that some assert is a proper name, and which many breed-specialist though few non-specialist publications seem to treat as such). Mustangs are just several populations of free-breeding feral horses; compare dingo, feral cat, etc. MOS:LIFE is very clear that we do not capitalise names of general groups of animals. There is a difference between "Mustang", which for WP purposes also happens to be ambiguous (a Ford vehicle line, an aircraft, etc. – see Mustang (disambiguation)), and "mustang", a general word in English, from which the capitalized uses derive, the way the Dodge Ram's capitalised name derives from the ram. An exception to lower-casing "mustang" in horse-space would be (if we continue capitalizing names of standardized breeds) when "Mustang" is part of a standardised breed's name, if there is such a case at all. Our article Kiger Mustang is presently improperly capitalised, and should be lower-cased along with this one, and its text corrected, as that name refers to a free-breeding feral population. The article also covers, as subtopics, two standardised breeds (or breeder trademarks for one standardised breed, depending on one's interpretation) developed from the ferals, the Kiger Horse and the Kiger Musteño (capitalised), but neither of these are the Kiger mustang, any more than I am my father or mother. PS: The argument I've seen before, "well, most horse-specific publications capitalise 'Mustang'", is just the WP:Specialist style fallacy. Most domestic animal specialist publications capitalise animal type, breed, species, etc., group names as a form of internal jargon, just as D&D players capitalize "Fighter" and "Thief", and the US Government capitalises "Staff Sergeant" (even when not used before a person's name). So cf. also WP:JARGON, as well as WP:NOT policy. WP does not do what house-organ specialist publications do just because "experts" would like it; we do what makes the most sense for our readership, the world's broadest and most general audience. This is the core lesson of WP:BIRDCON (the secondary one being that livid apoplexy about not getting one's specialist style quirk leads nowhere good).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• SMC, let's not go off on tangents about feral and landrace breeds not being "standardized or "real" breeds - they are "real" breeds in that we have an isolated population with true-breeding traits. (Ask Sponenberg) . Montanabw 09:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Capitalize: Breeds and landraces are not species. WP:SSF is not a policy, it is a one-person essay essay masquerading as a guideline. BIrDCON was an example of wikipedia at its worst- running off the editors who actually know something about their subject. I guess this is the latest battleground for the "experts are all scum" crowd. Sigh. Montanabw 03:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• If you're one of these editors that know something special, please do share it. What makes it a good idea to capitalize this term even when 90% of sources do not? Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Well, Dicklyon, I suppose it goes to respect for those who work the most closely with the subject - those despised "experts." 90% of sources are not expert sources; let's look at an example: Probably 90% of laypeople misunderstand schizophrenia to mean "split personality" - so, should we ignore the "experts" who say it is a somet just because the overwhelming majority of people who use the word misuse it? Poor reasoning. Expert sources need to be the starting point. Montanabw 09:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• I'll bet you that most of the experts on Don Quixote use Spanish to express themselves. Our article on Don Quixote does not follow that. Without any fuss at all, we take the points they make and change the language to fit our house language. I can't see why we wouldn't change horse "expert" capitalization to match our style. And that's even conceding the point that experts are more likely to capitalize, which is not proven as I see it. Red Slash 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• @Montanabw: What you see as a disdain for experts does not reflect my thoughts at all. On topics of horses, art, psychology or whatever, I respect experts and I hope those experts will share their expertise with Misplaced Pages. When it comes to style of writing in this encyclopedia, which is about almost everything, I respect experts on general writing. Writing for a specialist audience has different needs from generalist writing. I am unable to understand people who love a subject and want to share it with the world, but will only do so if they can capitalize the words they want. This is not an attempt to browbeat and insult experts, it is an attempt to make Misplaced Pages the best it can be. SchreiberBike talk 18:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Lowercase This is a longstanding issue that's been the subject of much debate on Misplaced Pages. Here's my take on it: Consult subject-specific sources and experts for content but consult style guides and general English sources for presentation. Style guides and general English say lowercase. Misplaced Pages is not making this up. It's not what a small group of editors hemmed and hawed and decided they liked more; it's in the sources. We should go with it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Darkfrog, you make a reasonable argument, but sometimes style guides cling to archaic forms. Google Blue-footed booby, for example - WP is about the only hit you will get that DOESN'T capitalize, and that is thanks to BIRDCON, which resulted in the loss of several good editors and a lot of very frustrated people. Montanabw 09:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• You also make an excellent point, Montanabw, so I did Google "blue-footed booby." I checked the first non-Misplaced Pages source that caught my eye, National Geographic. They only capitalized it in the title and at the beginning of sentences, which is the only place the name appeared . Their article on the red-footed booby does have a mid-sentence instance. It's lowercase . I checked a few more. Natureworks uses lowercase . So does Scientific American . All About Birds uses capitals . Marinebio.org uses lowercase . A longer search might produce more variegated results, but it looks like Misplaced Pages is not at this time the only source that doesn't capitalize the name of this species in running text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would be very much into finding out who exactly has left the project over frustration with bird article capitalization, Montanabw - who do you know offhand who left? As you yourself commented, it's very much not my specialty (naming policy is). Red Slash 04:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I just hit up sciencemag.org. The search term "blue-footed booby" yielded only one article, "Why Animals Don't Lie" in a 2004 issue of Behavioral Ecology. It's lowercase too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• 50/50 for me Certainly most of the capitalization sources for "Mustang" are from specialist horse organizations. They probably should carry more weight than your average newspaper. But most average English sources would spell it "mustang", not that Misplaced Pages really goes with what most English sources use per my observations. Whatever the sourcing, Misplaced Pages goes with consensus. But when an Rfc gets plopped up and a mere 13 hours later on a weekend an editor calls "snow" and reverts the article when 5 of 7 posters see things as he does... that is Disruptive Editing. There may be many equine editors who haven't even seen this yet. Were the Equine, Livestock and United States projects notified, since this article lists them as categories? If not I can do it to make sure they have a chance to comment. The thing that bothers me most about de-capitalizing this are that breeds are capitalized here. A Mustang may not meet official breed nomenclature because of the feral/wild nature, they tend to be treated as breed-like in many writings and our readers will scratch their heads as to why. I know I do. Why Quarter Horse or Thoroughbred should be always be capitalized here yet mustang should not is quite strange and arbitrary to me. I would tend to lean in favor of capitalizing for that fact alone. Mustangs are kind of a special case... it's not like mountains will topple if it's left capitalized like other horses breeds are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click):, if you would like to post to the projects, I'd be grateful. If I did it, I would probably be accused of canvassing. Montanabw 10:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be ridiculous. As long as it's worded neutrally it's exactly where it should be posted. Who the heck knows what they would think, but as involved projects they would have better knowledge of the situation than many of us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Done...I just added this Rfc to the projects listed at the top of this talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Return to question My original question/concern relates to why breed names are capitalised when this is contrary to WP:MOS. I chose to raise this on the mustang article, which in hindsight, may have been a mistake because there are other issues here (i.e. whether mustangs are a breed or not) which are side-tracking the main question. When I publish articles in science journals (including Nature), I read the "Information for authors" section which gives directions on style. I adhere strictly to that style so that my paper gets published. The WP:MOS indicates that groups of animals (which surely includes breeds) should not be capitalised. If I published an article on WP that capitalised breeds, I would expect it to be reverted.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If that's the question you want to address, you should do it at the project and guideline pages; use actual breeds as examples. This page is not about a breed, except in the mind of a rarefied few. Dicklyon (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dicklyon:, actually, the Mustang IS a breed or a set of breeds, at least to the extent that is is most certainly NOT a species or subspecies of horse. It is a landrace, in that humans have influenced its breeding but so has nature. Landraces are a stage in breed formation. The federal law that protects assorted "free-ranging" (i.e. Mustangs) horses applies to specific herds in specific areas and the word "Mustang" applies to all of them as a group, though there are several subtypes of various bloodlines, plus other horses that have been raised in captivity for generations that descend from feral stock and are still called Mustangs. There is also an interplay with the Colonial Spanish Horse here, some Mustangs are, some aren't. ( this article outlines how incredibly complex the situation is - and we aren't even starting to get into the political stuff.) I have long wanted to upgrade this article to get into these issues, but frankly, every time one of these stupid capitalization or "is this a breed?" disputes crops up, I lose all motivation to deal with the actual article. If someone wanted to step up and seriously help collaborate here, it would be really nice. Montanabw 18:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that another editor thinks I have raised a "stupid ...dispute". Doesn't the fact that this issue keeps raising it's head indicate that many other editors are unhappy about this and it therefore needs rational discussion and consensus. So far, I have seen very little arguement in favour of capitalisation here that is contrary to the WP:MOS.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I raised the issue here before I realised this was more widespread than just the mustang article, however, editors have chosen to make their comments on this page.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you have a very good point. As long as Montanabw takes the "capitalize breeds" convention as permission to capitalize anything that's not a species, we have a bigger problem that I realized. Dicklyon (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Lowercase mustang, no reason to capitalise. (There is a good case for capitalising the names of bird species, as recommended by ornithologists. But "mustang" designates neither a species nor a bird.) Maproom (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Lowercase mustang, not only is there no reason to capitalise, but there is reason NOT to capitalise. You might as well insist on capitalising "Horse" or "Capital". We don't even need WP:MOS and similar guidelines in this matter; simple English literacy gives us ample Indication tHat it it is an inappropriate Practice to use Capitals idiosyncratically, such as in mustanG. Mustang (see, I can capitalise it too; I'm not bigoted!) is not a proper noun in English and it does not derive from a proper noun in Spanish. Even where there might be a basis for regarding it as a proper noun because I call my son or my dog "Mustang", or where fORD call their car "Mustang", or because a horse breeders' body elects to recognise a breed by that name, it does not follow that I should refer to the feral horses on my Ranch (or any other ranch) as capitalised mustangs, any more than I should insist on calling the thing on my shoulder a Satchel because that happens to be the name of my neighbour's elder son. Nor that I should always capitalise "colorpoint shorthair" because (as happens to be the case) there is a cat breed of that name. Not every colorpoint shorthair is a Colorpoint Shorthair, and even if my cat were registered as a Colorpoint Shorthair, that implies no compulsion to avoid referring to him as a colorpoint shorthair. It implies nothing derogatory to the cat, nor to the breed, but may suggest some respect for the language and for WP. JonRichfield (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• mustang. English is conservative about capitalizing nouns that aren't clearly proper nouns, and this is certainly in the grey area. Wouldn't capitalize "wild horse" wudja? Herostratus (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Herostratus and JohRichfield, your analogy fails. This is not a separate species and what is driving me crazy here is that most people here don't seem to get that. All Mustangs are horses; not all horses are Mustangs. Also, not all feral horses are Mustangs, (nor are all Mustangs feral). The Mustang is a unique landrace horse breed with several, but not all strains having been given special names. (The Pryors, Sulphurs, Kigers, etc.) Species are created by nature (or God or whatever), breeds are human-developed to some extent or another. We capitalize many other animal breed names. If this thread is arguing that no breed names should be capitalized, or that some animal breeds should but others should not be capitalized, then that's a bigger discussion that should go elsewhere and this thread should close until that drama is settled. If this thread is arguing that the Mustang is a separate species, then you are simply incorrect; Mustangs are equus ferus caballus just like every other horse or pony. If this thread is about if the Mustang is a "breed" or not, then we have yet a third discussion. So which is it? Montanabw 21:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Makes not a scrap of difference whether mustang is a species, breed or something in between. The point is it's not a proper noun. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• That is correct, and WP:MOS indicates that therefore, "mustang" should not be capitalised. At the moment, I am seeing only one single editor arguing that mustang should be capitalised.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• If breed names are to be capitalized, then there must be some standard for what constitutes a breed. Recognition by some organization as a breed alongside other recognized breeds could demonstrate that. Does this kind of horse have that? SchreiberBike talk 00:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• The USA has no standardization for horses and no equivalent of the AKC. The list the USA submits to the FAO doesn't even list known American-developed breeds and includes several that are not.

But consider that style guides specifically address capitalization. When it comes to the question of how to write encyclopedia articles, they are the expert sources that deal with the issue at hand specifically. I wouldn't prefer a style guide to a large-animal veterinary journal with regard to horse diet, training or breed history but I wouldn't prefer the journal to a style guide on capitalization, punctuation or spelling. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Capitalize Mustang. as breed. If we are writing an article about the breed in an encyclopedia using the best of sources, I assume sources from specialist horse organizations, possibly the equivalent of academic sources, should be definitive. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC))

I disagree totally. If we are writing on Misplaced Pages, the definitive source of style is WP:MOS. Capitalising "mustang" is contrary to WP:MOS. If editors do not like that, take it up on the WP:MOS talk page.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is a general encyclopedia and usually bases its style decisions on other generalist sources as explained in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Organisms#Capitalization: "based on prevailing use in peer-reviewed scientific and academic journals, general-audience mainstream sources, and the recommendations of most English writing authorities, despite the preference for capitalization in some specialist publications." If we follow specialist sources in a general encyclopedia there will be a great deal of inconsistency and Misplaced Pages will look less credible. SchreiberBike talk 05:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

lowercase mustang - Sorry I'm late, but the bot just notified me five minutes ago. Thank heaven for dictionaries, as they save us a lot of time arguing about the meanings, spellings, and capitalizations of words. Except when we choose to ignore them. Here's the applicable dictionary entry and forgive me if I lack the time to read the whole discussion. There is nothing I see to indicate that this article is specifically about a breed to the exclusion of the animal as defined in the dictionary. If purists wish to create a separate article about a breed, they're free to give it a try. More reasonably, you could create a section about the breed in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Btw, the organization of this RfC bites. It took me five minutes to decide where to put the above, and I'm still not sure I got it right. How are people supposed to easily find new !votes?? By reading diffs? We generally have separate subsections for !votes and discussion, and new !votes are added at the end of that subsection. Some discussion sometimes creeps into the !votes section, but it still works better than no organization at all. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Capitalization per: Individual species within the categories such as German Shepherd, Abyssinian, or Lipizzaner would be capitalized because they are proper nouns.. Yes, I know there is debate ongoing regarding "breed", "species", etc.; but for now I support the capital in Mustang. (although this does seem to be such wp:lame dispute). — Ched :  ?  20:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Innappropriate examples above The three examples in the comment above should be capitalised, or at least the first word. "German shepherd" is capitalised because it is derived from Germany, "Abyssenian" is derived from Abyssinia and The "Lipizzaner" is apparently named after a ranch. Nobody has made such a location connection with mustang horses. By the way, these 3 examples are not individual species as the reference states, they are breeds. I suggest the reference is of extremely poor quality and the editor should not use this again.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

    I'm not using it as a reference - I'm using it as the reason for my support. But nice try. — Ched :  ?  01:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Summary then (not necessarily final, of course; feel welcome to add to the list): capitalisation of the word in this article (irrespective of usage in any other article)
  • Should reflect WP:MOS principles
  • Should reflect established principles of English spelling and grammar
  • Should reflect the explicit topic of this article as it appears in the lede ("the free-roaming horse of the North American west that first descended from horses brought to the Americas by the Spanish")
  • Should require compelling justification for any divergence from these determinants; ad hoc practices, such as the capitalisation of common nouns in breed names, official or otherwise, are not compelling
• None of which supports capitalisation JonRichfield (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

ad hoc practices, such as the capitalisation of common nouns in breed names, official or otherwise, are not compelling – what makes a practice "ad hoc"? Can you define this independently? Or is this just a 'boo term' as "specialist" has become in these discussions? A practice in an official source may or may not be worth following here (for what it's worth I see no case for capitalizing breed names but not the IOC names of birds, the BSBI names of plants, etc.), but I don't see that it contributes anything to call practices in official sources "ad hoc". Peter coxhead (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Peter, what makes a practice ad hoc is its application. Suppose (weak example, but I don't wish to fumble around for a strong one) that someone reckons that the mustang (ie a representative member of the population of "the free-roaming ... horses brought to the Americas by the Spanish") looks like a good basis for a breed -- it has some good and useful genes and all that. All we need do is select those with desirable DNA and bob's your tail: new breed! Which we shall call tadaaa! mustang! Anything else would belittle its ancestry. Problem: the word is very general in its usage; it means all sorts of things. And it isn't generally capitalised. But the dignity of our our New Breed demands a capital, so for that particular purpose (ad hoc) we insist on capitalising it. So far so good. If anyone tells us not to capitalise it in our documents discussing our nice new breed, we very politely tell them to get knotted and if they don't like our documents, they can read something else. We had an ad hoc purpose and we acted accordingly. No problem. Until we go and tell other people that our ad hoc practice now suddenly becomes a universal principal and they must spell every mustang in future with a capital whether it is a member of the breed or not. Does that clarify what I had been saying? JonRichfield (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Jon, M/mustangs are a "breed" but it may be more accurate to describe them as a group of separate breeds or substrains. See below. If you have any actual interest in this issue, I can point you to the research I've been digging up. Ping me at my talk page if you are. Montanabw 04:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. I agree that in the specific case of "mustang", capitalization does seem to be "ad hoc"; if that's what you meant, then we are in full agreement. But you originally wrote official or otherwise, and I don't agree that a capitalization decision by a body responsible for breed standards would be "ad hoc". Peter coxhead (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You make a good point, Peter. The ad hoc problem stems in part from the "breed" question with Mustangs. What cannot be separated from this issue is politics - one group of people want to preserve them and another group of people would like to see them completely exterminated from public lands. So even the "breed" question is fraught... if they have breed characteristics, then that is an argument in favor of their preservation. If they can be dismissed as estrays, then it is an argument for sending them to slaughter. Montanabw 04:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Move to close

With Montanabw relenting (see his protected edit request below), and lack of any plausible reason to capitalize, I suggest this be closed now. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not "relenting"- I am giving up. I very much appreciate the people who have supported capitalization, and it is still my position that this is the more appropriate style, but I am fed up with the drama. Mustangs are a breed, but not in the typical "one group of standardized bloodlines with a single breed registry" sense. (More like "20 different groups trying to save these horses against several groups of ranchers all trying to get politicians to decide how much grass should be devoted to cows grazing on public lands") As noted below, the issue is very, very complicated, and the more research I do, the more complicated it gets. Montanabw 04:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The political issues are complicated, and I wish you good luck with that. But wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization, so the issue here is not so complicated. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes wikipedia is wrong, but I cannot fight every battle. You win. Doesn't mean I agree. Montanabw 05:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to close this RFC but because of its extended nature I wanted to leave a note for 24 hours before closing in case there were any arguments left to make. SPACKlick (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I now see that people have agreed to the removal of capitalisation. In which case I would point out that the 3 below linked sentences are still capitalised. Just to check if it's intentional.

Regardless of these debates, the Mustang of the modern west has several different breeding populations today which are genetically isolated from one another and thus have distinct traits traceable to particular herds.

The BLM considers roughly 26,000 individuals a manageable number, but the feral Mustang population in February 2010 was 33,700 horses and 4,700 burros.

One example is a promotional competition, The Extreme Mustang Makeover, that gives trainers 100 days to gentle and train 100 mustangs, which are then adopted through an auction.

I will still wait 18 more hours to close in case of last minute objections.SPACKlick (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I fixed these, leaving only the proper name Extreme Mustang Makeover, but what about "Spanish Mustang", "Kiger Mustang", etc Dondervogel 2 (talk)

Those are capitalized in their own Misplaced Pages articles and I assume would be left capitalized here. The Spanish Mustang is a breed that is also found in Spain. The Kiger Mustang does not appear to be a classified as a breed but is capitalized on Misplaced Pages. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. I can see that Spain is a proper noun and I assume so too is Kriger, in which case the correct capitalization would be Spanish mustang and Kriger mustang. Still, none of that affects the present discussion, which can be closed as far as I'm concerned. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Per wikipedia consensus, breeds are capitalized. So Pomeranian, Standardbred, Quarter Horse, Russian Blue, etc. Assuming that "Spanish Mustang" is a breed, it would also be fully capitalized here on Misplaced Pages. The mustang in this article was not deemed a "breed"... it was more "breed-like" and has been deemed to not be capitalized. So we have a Standardbred horse, a Spanish Jennet horse, a Spotted Saddle horse,... and therefore a Spanish Mustang horse, as far as capitalization goes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you please indicate where this consensus was reached.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A consensus is not always reached at an identifiable place. The widespread practice in WP is that breeds are capitalized, and even MOS supporters like me and SMcCandlish have stopped fighting it (if I read him correctly), as it does not appear that the consensus is likely to change. I would still argue against capitalizing terms terms that are not clearly breeds, like mustang, but I'm OK with Kiger Mustang and Spanish Mustang, which are used as breed names, as far as I can tell. Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) So which rule takes precedence, WP:MOS or this local quirk? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In this case, the local quirk, unless you can get a consensus to overturn it. This seems to happen in some other areas, too, like the Civil Rights Movement articles, which would be lowercase by MOS, based on clear majority of lowercase in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is also based on longstanding placement. Just like MOS, if someone adds something to it and it is not challenged, it becomes consensus. You don't think that Misplaced Pages's MOS was added bit by bit after long conversations do you? Some parts were added and only noticed 6 months later. Non-challenging is also consensus at Misplaced Pages. Breeds are capitalized at Misplaced Pages. Can newer consensus change that, sure. But as of right now, they are capitalized. "Mustang" here has been deemed not to be a bread, so not capitalized. And it's not against MOS as MOS discusses taxonomy and species, not breeds. The thing is, breed capitalization changes would require a massive RfC that encompasses much more than the simple de-capitalization of a single feral horse type. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not entirely true. WP:MOS refers to "This applies to species and subspecies, as in the previous examples, as well as general names for groups or types of organisms: bird of prey, oak, great apes..."__DrChrissy (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Just treat is as closed and move on. More often than not, these things never get officially closed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mustang (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Move discussion is closed. Dreadstar ☥ 03:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Other changes - prettyplease

No need for this to clutter up the other discussion

Folks, while the capitalization debate above is raging, I would graciously ask two things: If you want to revert capitalization, please do it with search and replace, not reverting, as there are intervening edits that may be caught up in a mass revert. If you want to make other changes, can you please DISCUSS them here first? Some things (like two lead photos) are there for a reason. If you find good sources, feel free to post them here. Always room to add solid new content. (OK< so that's three things) Thanks Montanabw 10:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC) When I undid Fyunk's capitalizing, I carefully preserved other changes including the photo change. I guess there was no way to keep you happy there. Dicklyon (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC) @Dicklyon: there may have been some intervening edits between yours and mine. Montanabw 18:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC) When I removed the second lead image, it is because it is convention to have only one, unless they show male and female images. It seems strange to me to have an image of a captive individual for what is described as a "free-roaming" animal. If other articles followed this lead, we would have an image of the animal in the wild and an image of the same animal in a zoo. If you wish to highlight the activity of the organisation in the caption, this should be done in the main body of the text. Perhaps the reason for having the first lead image can be stated?__DrChrissy (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC) @DrChrissy:, I'd be open to explaining if that will help. The tame animal is not in a zoo - these are animals decended from previously-domesticated stock and as such, once captured off the range can often be trained and made into perfectly decent horses for use by humans for riding and so on. I don't think there are any Mustangs in a zoo, they aren't "wild" horses even though they (or their ancestors) live in the wild. But you clearly didn't read the entire article, which explains the adoption thing - even in the lead! Also, there is very, very little sexual dimorphism in horses between male and female (even breed standards that argue for a little more height for males aren't realistic, though males on average are slightly larger than females within a given breed, it isn't consistent - the mare Zenyatta was 17 hands (68 inches, 173 cm) and stallion Seabiscuit only about 15 hands (60 inches, 152 cm) ) This two-image lead is an WP:IAR to reflect a unique thing about Mustangs: Many Mustangs are "adopted" off the range due to population pressures. They do not cease to be Mustangs when removed. The animal that was in captivity is an excellent example of a modern Mustang, and the other image, showing the animals in their "wild" range condition demonstrates the wide variation seen in these animals. To the extent the lead needs some work, it may need some work, but you don't understand that there were reasons for this decision. (For one thing, for a while, there was a big debate over whether to use the wild or tame photp, using both is a compromise AND illustrative of body types.) Montanabw 18:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC) I did read the entire article and I get quite fed up of seeing editors write that others have not read the article simpley to cover up an inadequate article. I didn't understand the reason for having 2 images because we are not told in the caption. It should be made clear that these adopted mustangs are "modern" (your word) mustangs and are different from other mustangs. If the image and caption are to remain, it should include the word "modern" - we should not have to expect readers to go through the article and then to the talk pages simply because editors are being careless with captions. Regarding animals in Zoos, I was actually talking about animals in captivity in general. We have a donkey sanctuary in the UK - I think I need to put a second lead image on the Donkey article of a donkey on a lead. Then I will go to the zebra page and put on a second lead image of a zebras towing a carriage, or jumping fences.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC) The article is B-class at best, and I will be the first to agree it's not ready for a GAN yet. But the "inadequacies" are a topic for discussion, not drive-by random edits that don't help anything. I am fed up with people who criticize and don't want to do all the work of reading the research and creating actual content. (IF you wanted to start an article on the Sulphur Mustangs, by the way, that would be cool, we don't have one yet.) Changes like using forced image sizes (i.e. 250 px instead of using the "upright" parameter) are outdated editing methods, and things like tag-bombing the article is really not helpful Montanabw 00:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC) The two images settled an editing discussion where some people felt that the article's original image - the adopted horse - was not representative because he was more fat and healthy than a free-ranging Mustang, while others felt that the image of the range mustangs was not representative because it showed scrawny, ill-fed horses. Both arguments had merit and the compromise was to teach the controversy and show them both. @Ealdgyth: was one of the photographers on this. One horse illustrates what the animals look like when they are owned and loved by a human owner (fat, well-muscled, groomed, shiny, happy, good quality animal), the other is how they look in the wild (scrawny, ungroomed, wary of people, but probably pretty happy that way too, and the quality is still there). The DNA of these animals is pretty much the same, they aren't two different strains. We specifically used an image of an animal BORN ON THE RANGE, captured, and adopted - precisely for that reason. (Is some part of "adopted from the BLM" unclear?) As for the donkeys and zebras, I suppose we could add photos of stray, ungroomed poodles to that article as well. The logic is equally silly. (And if you can find a zebra pulling a carriage or jumping a fence with human riders, go for it) Montanabw 00:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Perhaps it will help to briefly discuss the politics: There is an ongoing tension in this article between the extreme views. A lot of people in the ranching industry - and they are connected to politically powerful western interests - essentially want to remove- and kill if necessary - all the "wild" horses to make room for grazing cows (and some sheep) on public lands. A BLM grazing lease is about 10% the price per head of a grazing lease on private land, and it allows the ranching industry an indirect subsidy at taxpayer expense. One reason they have historically used as justification to remove Mustangs was that Mustangs were "ugly" or "scrub" animals, useless parasites of poor breeding, The truth is that many of the protected feral populations (not all) have had DNA that clearly shows they descend from the Colonial Spanish Horse. Their "fugly" look is mostly due to their living conditions, not their genetics. The protection of "wild" horses and the BLM adoption program were attempts to stop this slaughter. ( Read Velma Bronn Johnston for background) The issue has been a concern dating back to at least the Great Depression. (Back in the 1930s, the BLM hired "mustangers" to try and round up all the wild horses; private mustang runners did this too -- the captured horses were generallysold for horsemeat, though some were just shot and left to rot) The current situation makes no one happy - cattlemen still want more grassland for their cows bot on the other extreme are some wild horse advocates think that there shouldn't be any cattle on public lands at all. There is also the debate between those who say the horse is a non-native introduced species and those who way the horse is a "restored" species once native to the continent (albiet 10,000 years ago). A third group argues (against all scientific evidence) that "wild" horses really do have some native ancestors and that the horse didn't really die out in North America. (which is, by the way, a fringe view I periodically have to edit out of here). I won't even bother to mention the animal rights crowd that thinks that riding animals is bad, but there's that bunch too. Just keeping this article neutral in tone is an ongoing monitoring problem. Hence, this is why I get tired of these little dramas, they just suck energy and don't do anything to expand the article in ways that would be useful. Montanabw 00:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC) From the Zebra aricleLord Rothschild with his famed zebra carriage (sp. Equus quagga burchellii), which he frequently drove through LondonJumping an obstacle: riding a zebra in East Africa, about 1900 Apologies for causing this "little drama" but this is not being helped by some of the language you are using on this page and others which appears to be intended to humiliate me or belittle my intentions. As for my not "creating actual content", please see my user page. I would not presume to write any article on horses because (and this is the central issue) I would not have any structured guidance from the WP:MOS - horse articles do not even use SI units! As for images of tamed zebra, "...you clearly didn't read the entire article".__DrChrissy (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC) DrChrissy, I am trying to be nice, but I am getting very frustrated with you. We have had some good collaboration in the past, but you are behaving very differently all of a sudden, and I am surprised. You are raising issues that have been resolved for YEARS and not asking or discussing (the SI units issue has also come up repeatedly, we have a whole convert template created to resolve that one (it does a three-way conversion, in any direction), all we need to do is keep adding it to older articles, and you can too!) We have dozens of articles about the technical language of horses, we have created glossaries, templates, etc., all you need to do is ask. As for the zebras, you want to add those images, have a good time, I don't watchlist zebra articles, you can deal with them if you want to be POINT-y. Montanabw 22:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC) You may be perceiving a difference in behaviour because you are making what I take as personal attacks - I am having to defend myself, rather than my edits. I have no idea what a "POINT-y" is, however, I suspect it is a further personal attack. Please stop immediately.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC) The applicable article is WP:POINT. Your edits are disruptive and I cannot figure out why someone like yourself, who has been a pretty solid editor in the past, good about discussing things and previously quite reasonable, is suddenly behaving the way you are behaving. Montanabw 21:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Please focus your comments on the edits I have made and why you might disagree with them. Saying that I am being disruptive is yet another personal attack, and one I take extremely seriously. Please indicate where you believe I have been disruptive and we can take this to an external assessment authority ....whoever/wherever that might be.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC) I did. You are now in WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT territory. You are making disruptive edits across multiple articles now, I see, so I think it best this discussion continue at your talk page. Montanabw 20:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC) No - do not bother taking this to my talk page. If you are serious about this, raise an ANI and be prepared for my counter aguements which I have chosen not to express in public because I have tried to remain civil in my tone. You keep complaining about not having enough time to make constructive edits. Why then persist in this inflammatory method of communication? Please raise an ANI and do not take this to my talk page.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC) I'm tempted. So far, you've screwed up five different articles. But I have enough drama here. Way up above, I explained the two image thing, I addressed your "today" problem, the image captions have been explained, and so what's left? Montanabw 00:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Why do you keep attempting to hide from readers, your personal attacks on me? - I am sure people reading this are sensible and intelligent enough to make up their own mind when to stop reading this discussion. Again you have made a personal attack on me by saying that I have "screwed up" five different articles. This is yet another serious accusation and I strongly recommend that you take this to ANI so that independent persons can support or refute your multiple accusations.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Can this just end right here, right now... please? This is not what I want to read on this talk page. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC) I agree with you totally and have absolutely no desire to carry this on. However, an editor is making personal attacks on me here which I take extremely seriously and I feel I must defend myself. I have suggested here and at other places that the other editor raises an ANI so that it will take the issue away from here, but the other editor is currently refusing to do so. Apologies to you and other readers who may not be wishing to read this. I totally understand and sympathise.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC) I'm collapsing this discussion. I have no interest in continuing this drama at ANI or anywhere else. The ball is totally in the other user's court. Montanabw 03:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 January 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change instances of the word "Mustang" in upper case to lower case where used in sentence case and not referring to a specific substrain with wikilinked article. But keep the article under Full protection for at least another week or two. Montanabw 04:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reasoning: I have opposed this change from uppercase to lower case, but If the majority here insist that Mustangs must be lower case "mustangs", I have many other things I'd rather be working on. I ask that the article remain under Full protection because other drama has come up here and needs to settle down. The question of what Mustangs are is a complex issue. I have been doing an extensive review of the literature and the short version is that there are dozens of BLM HMAs in 10 states. , with different herds having multiple substrains with different histories that have developed over several hundred years, but in some isolation from one another since the mid-20th century. There are two major researchers studying these horses, D.Phillip Sponenberg at Virginia Tech and Gus Cochran at Texas A&M. Both agree that the BLM herds of free-roaming Mustangs (called "wild horses" in the law) are descended from domesticated horses, hence not a true "wild" animal. Sponenberg and Cochran both make a case that many of these free-ranging bands are a form of breed (some might say "landrace" though neither researcher uses that word much). They also agree that some, but not all of these horse herds are Spanish Colonial Horses based upon their phenotype and, in some cases, DNA. Sponenberg holds that these breeds may all be substrains derived the historic Spanish Colonial Horse. Cochran has speculated that they might each be separate breeds. Some bands have more mixed breeding than others - humans sometimes turned out tame stallions of various types to "improve" the herds for various human uses. Politics infuses everything (i.e. if they get rid of wild horses, then ranchers can run more cows) Complicating matters are at least 20 different private, non-profit organizations dedicated to protecting various strains and herds of Mustangs, some calling themselves a breed registry. Basically, it is going to take months to sort through all of this and properly incorporate it into the article, but this can't happen while all the energy is going into an endless capitalization debate. So let's end it and close the discussion, let the dust settle, and then those of us who actually care about this article and want to improve its content can take a look at it later. Montanabw 04:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no other dispute currently under discussion. Since you are relenting on the caps question, there's no need to wait for the silly RFC to close; just unprotect the article and let us be back to normal. If people war over something else, protection may happen again, but I think people know not to do that by now. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the edit-warring over images and tag-bombing that was part of what promoted the full protection by @Panyd:, plus the bit of edit-warring over the caption in the collapsed section above, I'd be more comfortable keeping the article protected. Montanabw 04:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Requessts for page protection is done here: WP:RPP. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll unprotect this - but Montanabw isn't wrong about the other little niggles that got thrown in with the apparently large one. If that kicks off again, I think going right back to protection is probably safest. Go consensus though! Panyd 13:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I did the downcasing, with a few other nits that I don't think will bother anybody. Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

TPP

Just so those who care know, following this, I have requested temporary semi protection on this article. We have enough going on here, we don't need the kiddie vandalism too. Just posting so everyone knows I did this for the benefit of all and it had nothing to do with any of the issues above. Montanabw 22:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Information is not the same

This: "By 1900 North America had an estimated two million free-roaming horses" is not the same information as this "At their peak population, there was a maximum of two million free-roaming horses west of the Mississippi". so no need to replace one with the other. If we are gong to retain this "At their peak population, there was a maximum of two million free-roaming horses west of the Mississippi" Please supply a page number/numbers so sources can be checked by all. I don't see one given. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC))

I can't supply page numbers for the 1900 date, because they doesn't exist. As I said in my edit notes, Dobie didn't say what is being attributed to him. What Dobie did say was: "All guessed numbers are mournful to history. My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." (pages 108-9, of the edition I'm referencing-it's in the last paragraph of Chapter VI). So, if you want to use Dobie as the source for your numbers, it needs to be changed to reflect the fact that Dobie never gave a date for the maximum number, just the number itself. Unless I see a reasonable rebuttal within the next couple of days, I'm reverting it back. Lynn Wysong 08:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

These aren't my dates nor is it my content. I'm trying to verify what you added.You removed content and then added content that has a different meaning, is different information. I can't see reasons for that unless I have sources. Your edit summary seemed to indicate that the original date, 1900, was a date for the estimate of a peak number of mustangs, and you seem to be arguing that point, but that's not what the 1900 date refers to. It never says anything about peak; its just a number per a date. Maybe let's not talk about revering anything until we can find sources for content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC))

User:SheriWysong is right about Dobie, though the form of her edit was also not quite right, either, as even Dobie admitted to considerable speculation on his out part. The 1900 date is not verifiable, and though Dobie is the source of the two million estimate, it needs to be rephrased a bit and I have done so in line with the issue as discussed by the BLM, which is going to be the most reliable source on this matter. This is, by the way, a spillover from Talk:Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, where I took the basic wording from the currently protected version of the article (yes, it is my own phrasing) and I most certainly hope that @Dreadstar: will watchlist this article here and protect it if the same dispute spills over. Montanabw 05:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

1. I said the number was a "peak" because that's what Dobie, the source that was being referenced at the time, said: " at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West" 2. Why is the BLM being given credit for being the most "reliable source" on mustang history? It's a land management agency, for crying out loud, and one that doesn't even hire historians, like the National Park Service does. Why is what the actual source, written by an actual historian published by a University press, says now being repressed in favor of an interpretation of what the BLM is interpreting Dobie said? When, I made the edit, the Dobie book was referenced, now that reference has been removed in favor of the BLM website. Just quote Dobie, and then there is no argument about what he said, and the information goes back to the actual source, which is the practice of all good reference. But, I'll wait to change it until there's a resolution on the other article, because there should be consistency between the two. Lynn Wysong 08:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Surely, for balanced reporting, BOTH sources should be used. If the wording of a source is open to interpretation, perhaps make a direct quote.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Both sides are being reported, the best we can; the problem is that mustangs are like abortion, people get polarized and have little middle ground. I'm doing my damnedest here. Montanabw 06:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Both sources could be used. But in the case of User:Montanabw's edit, she replaced the Misplaced Pages preferred secondary source https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources, a University Press published book written by a respected professor of Western history, with her interpretation of what a BLM website, a non-independent source https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Independent_sources, had said. On top of that, I see three problems with the edit: 1. it uses "American West" instead of "West of the Mississippi". "American West" can be interpreted to mean "West of the Rockies". If you read Dobie, or even his quote, he is clearly writing mostly about West of the Mississippi and East of the Rockies. So, since "West of the Mississippi" encompasses both east and west of the Rockies, it is a better term. 2. The way it is phrased, it makes it sound like Dobie simply pulled the number out of thin air. As stated earlier, Dobie was a respected professor of Western History. As such, it was not just a guess, but an educated guess. 3. It uses the term "scientific census". Dobie used the term "scientific estimate", but that does not translate to "scientific census" I believe the term "comprehensive census" is better as it a) does not preclude the use of other reasonable population estimations, and b) There's no real "science" behind the census's, especially the 1971 census. The BLM simply flies over the HMA and counts the horses it can find. But, it didn't even do that until 1975, at which point, even accounting for population growth between 1971 and 1975, it determined that that population was twice what the 1971 "scientific" number stated. Since user:DrChrissy suggested we use both sources, I went ahead and made those changes, and added Dobie's reference back in. We can still discuss using Dobie's direct quote, but with the changes I made, I'm not sure it's necessary. Lynn Wysong 15:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll be leaving this discussion. I'd note my concern was with identifying page numbers so I could see the source/sources. I reverted to the then stable version until I had sources given one piece of information was being swapped for another.WP preferred sources? Dobie's book was published in the 30's. Information gathering is more sophisticated now, so I'd be wary of saying one of the sources is better than another. Primary sources are useful and acceptable per Misplaced Pages although care must be taken with their use. Best wishes all.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC))

apologies looks like I moved a signature.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC))

• The last set of edits almost worked, I made a couple changes, but kept the sourcing. "American west" is a deliberate choice, as there are no firm estimates and the issue of wild horse populations on either side of the continental divide is just a red herring, it is absurd to get into a debate over geography; there were mustangs in North Dakota, there were mustangs in Nevada. "West of the Mississippi" is not ideal; after all, the Mississippi runs through Minneapolis. There were no reliable estimates at all earlier, we use Dobie because he was highly respected and if you want to cite his book directly over the BLM's site, that's fine. But the BLM has the most modern research on the current Mustang situation. Wild horse advocates have some solid critiques of BLM management, but I have little reason to doubt their census numbers, at least as opposed to anyone else's. Montanabw 06:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You gave no justification for several of your edits, and is it stands now, the history is misleading; not neutral and balanced. Your opinion that "wild horse populations on either side of the continental divide is just a red herring" is just that, your opinion. It is an important distinction to understanding how the population got from an educated guess of a maximum of two million to where we are today. What actually qualifies as a "red herring" is your statement "But the BLM has the most modern research on the current Mustang situation...I have little reason to doubt their census numbers..." since we aren't talking about census 'numbers' just whether censuses took place-and to be more accurate, we're not even talking about those but "scientific estimates." Your statement "'West of the Mississippi' is not ideal; after all, the Mississippi runs through Minneapolis." is in direct conflict with your sentence just before: "there were mustangs in North Dakota" since North Dakota is just west of Minnesota. The other change you made: "Since settlement of the West began under the auspices of the General Land Office in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the mustang population has been reduced drastically" which you changed to "By the 1950s mustang population dropped drastically" also represses information that makes the history more clear, since there all credible sources indicate that most of the population drop occurred prior to 1900 (before my edits, the article read "Since 1900, the mustang population has been reduced drastically." So, as user:DrChrissy suggested, I directly quoted to make the history more accurate, neutral and balanced. Lynn Wysong 08:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I suggest that editors looking at this section try to focus on the message/s they are trying to convey. I am now lost in what has become a tangle of detail, some of which is related, some of which is not. The passage dives all over the place from historical writings to capture of mustangs by airplane and poisoning! It has also become so US oriented that only people with knowledge of American geography can follow it. Please make this passage more accessible.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point DrChrissy. Does the latest edit make it better? Also, if no one has a source that states population numbers dropped after 1934, I'm happy to let the number stand at Dobie's "a few" in 1934 without conjuncture that it dropped after that point. But, do need to clarify that since the horses reproduce quickly, large numbers could still be removed each year without lowering the base population. Lynn Wysong 15:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so I tried to make "Because mustang numbers can double every four years, they were rounded up in large numbers and the abuses linked to certain capture methods..." sound a little less disjointed, as user:DrChrissy pointed out, but the edit was removed because "neither of those statements is supported by the source cited" I actually didn't cite a source, but one could easily be found since there are a lot of non-independent ones (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Independent_sources), if anyone else cares to try to make the paragraph flow better before I can get around to finding an independent source.Lynn Wysong

The removal doesn't have anything to do with "independent sources", however. You're trying to insert new information into a section of the article that is already sourced, without providing a source for the new information. What you inserted was "Because mustang numbers can double every four years,<ref name=Quickfacts>{{cite web|last1=Gorey|first1=Tom|title=Quick Facts |url=http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/history_and_facts/quick_facts.html|website=Bureau of Land Management|accessdate=March 1, 2015|date=January 28, 2015}}</ref> and horses were no longer needed, for the most part, for their "horsepower", they began to be rounded up in large numbers to simply be eliminated because they competed with profitable livestock for forage on the range." right before "The abuses linked to certain capture methods, including hunting from airplanes and poisoning, led to the first federal wild free-roaming horse protection law in 1959.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wildhorsepreservation.org/wild-horse-annie-act |title=Wild Horse Annie Act |publisher=Wildhorsepreservation.org |accessdate=2014-07-23}}</ref>" ... the section you inserted your information in was cited, however, so when you inserted it, it made it look like your second part (the "and horses were no longer needed, for the most part, for their "horsepower", they began to be rounded up in large numbers to simply be eliminated because they competed with profitable livestock for forage on the range." part) was ALSO cited to the citation for the next sentence (the sentence beginning "The abuses linked to certain capture methods...: which is cited to "Wild Horse Annie Act") which indeed does not support the information you are putting in. This is a basic part of editing an article - if you insert something you need to also insert a source, ESPECIALLY if there is already a source attached to the information you are inserting into. A good basic rule is never insert any information without a source. It saves a lot of bother all around. Another thing that would be helpful is if you would quit going back and editing your posts multiple times. This makes edit conflicts happen and is very annoying to people trying to reply to you. And please sign your posts with four tildes ... this allows people to have a link back to your talk page, so they can easily communicate with you. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class equine articles
• Mid-importance equine articles
• Horse breeds task force articles
• WikiProject Equine articles
• B-Class Agriculture articles
• Low-importance Agriculture articles
• B-Class Livestock articles
• Low-importance Livestock articles
• Livestock task force articles
• WikiProject Agriculture articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles