This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia'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 articles
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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Please note that this page is not a soapbox or forum, it is for discussing changes to this article. Tanyia 20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sabino or Overo?
For those who care, what is your take on the animal pictured below? I'd like to put this photo into the proper wikipedia article, but I can't decide if this fellow is an overo or a sabino. In favor of overo is horizontal spotting, bald face, dark legs and tail--but his white isn't irregularly edged, and there's not a lot of it. In favor of Sabino are rounded belly spots, white on gaskins and he is somewhat roaned out. Those who know, what's your assessment? Overo or Sabino?same horse
I left my opinion on the Sabino Horse discussion page - but in a nutshell, I see more sabino traits on this horse than any other overo marking. Lmocr 20:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I would also say this horse is a sabino. An overo usually has more markings from shoulder to neck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.182.9 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, this post was 8 years ago... The horse has both, actually. Montanabw(talk) 18:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Requested moves
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. The consensus is that "Horse" and "Pony" are actually part of the breed name and not simply tacked on for disambiguation. And there is no consensus that these articles should deviate from the current norm of capitalising every word in the name of a horse breed. The question of whether they should be fully decapitalised (e.g. to American paint horse) was only covered by a few editors, wasn't the original topic of this RM and is definitely better suited to a RfC anyway. There is one exception to all this however,
Wikipedia:Don't move articles at AfD#Corollary) – in addition, the RM admins are not complete morons and are perfectly able to understand that a result of no consensus would default to the long term status quo, especially when it is pointed out several times in the RM. @SMcCandlish: please don't move articles without an RM when you know that there is very likely to objections. It's all very well to cite WP:BOLD, but the the RM page is quite clear that you should only do so "If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move". Jenks24 (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
– Restore mass moves of articles done without consultation and in defiance of longstanding consensus of page editors. Though normal capitalization in sentence case is appropriate for many horse and pony breeds, (e.g. Arabian horse, etc.) and a few of the mass moves appropriately did this and are not listed here, for some breeds the word "horse" or "Pony" as an inherent part of their proper name, and thus in these limited situations it should be capitalized. The basic guideline is if a name sounds completely ridiculous if "Horse" is dropped, i.e, we don't call an American Quarter Horse a "quarter." Likewise, "Danish Sport" "German Riding" or "Indian Half" makes no sense; "Costa Rican Saddle" can be confused with equipment, and "Florida Cracker" could be a derogatory description for a person. Further guidance can be seen in breed registry web sites where it is clear that the breed has a complete name as opposed to the mere convenience of adding "horse" or "pony". The American Paint Horse is one of those clear-cut examples, where the breed is not referred to as simply a "paint" (save for informal situations) due to confusion between a mere color breed and the specific breed, that includes certain other genetic characteristics. The others listed here have similar issues. there may be some room for a case-by-case discussion, but this lead article is a clear-cut case. Montanabw(talk) 17:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator Note that with over 300 horse breed articles, these are a limited set of exceptions. This is not an argument against the general MOS capitalization guidelines for article names. Montanabw(talk) 17:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - these are the proper names of breeds, I agree with Montana's arguments above. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Montana. And please discuss and get agreement for this kind of sweeping move. Add: The breed registry is the definitive source for naming and spelling of the breed. We really don't have to look further than that. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose. Should breed name really be capitalised? Why nor "American paint horse"? Coreyemotela (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Yes. Proper name of a breed. You will never see "American paint horse" in any horse or American publication. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and yes. >;-) Yes, you can find examples of all breed names being lower case except where they contain proper names (try Merriam-Webster Dictionary[1], Encyclopædia Britannica[2], Human Society[3], etc.), and we may go that way eventually, but yes, this is not that debate, this is only about capitalization of the species/type name (horse, pony, donkey) after the breed name ("American Paint", etc.). Proposing decapitalization of all breed names except where they contain proper names would be a much broader discussion, a site-wide RfC on the scale of the recent one about lower-casing species common names. And it would actually raise some different issues. Please don't confuse the two debates. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are not going down the road of the ongoing debate on that topic here, this is about 12 exceptions. Montanabw(talk) 19:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the purpose of the request but it is a good occasion to think about the correct way to name all of them. Coreyemotela (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose, and instead move
American Paint horse → American paint horse, etc. I don't see why Walking, Sport, Paint etc are capitalized but not horse; that style seems novel, but I might be misunderstanding something. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, it seems the argument is perhaps along the lines of "American Paint" being the proper name and then "horse" is just there as a natural disambiguator. Hmm. I'm not sure I buy it; everybody seems to either write it "American Paint Horse" or "American paint horse"; i.e. horse is part of the name, it seems. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in particular "Indian Half-Bred". Is there a special reason why the B is capitalized? We don't write hyphenated words in title case that way; why would this be an exception? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "Indian Half-Bred" is simply ungrammatical; there is not an English-language style guide anywhere that advises capitalization after a hyphen, and MOS certainly doesn't sanction it. Regardless, it's a different case and has to be considered separately. In all of the other cases, this is no different from any of the other zillion animal and plant breeds/varieties and their articles (it's a Siamese cat, a Sanguinello orange and an American Paint horse, not a Siamese Cat, a Sanguinello Orange or an American Paint Horse). Note carefully the result at
WP:Specialist style fallacy for a detailed explanation of the reasoning why). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: This is specifically NOT (NOT NOT NOT) about species. It is about breeds, which are a bit different; the "Alfa-Romero" argument below is actually quite apt. The examples of "Siamese cat" or Arabian horse" clearly are, as ErikHaugen noted, natural disambiguators. (I noted that above already to prevent that particular red herring from swimming!) But on a case by case basis which is what is under discussion here; there are exceptions, and the items listed above are those exceptions.
WP:PROPERNAME offers substantial guidance here. We are talking about 12 to 15 exceptions out of the 300 or 400 breed articles we have on wikipedia. Montanabw(talk) 23:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no relevant difference between breeds and species when it comes to the question before us. Asserting that these are somehow exceptions to a general rule does not demonstrate that they are. I don't think a redlinked shortcut to nothing offers substantial guidance on anything. ;-) Maybe you were thinking of
MOS:NAMECAPS, but both of them support downcasing horse/pony/donkey in these sorts of cases. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
We should consider whether the breed name includes the word "horse" (see my !vote, we can look at lists of breeds in reference works). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support restoration of the previous consensus. In each of these cases the breed name includes the word "Horse" or "Pony" and we have only to examine the article sources to see that. There exists a difference between, for example, "American Walking Pony" and "Dartmoor Hill pony": the former is the proper name of a breed (deliberately bred for certain characteristics), not any pony which happens to be born in the USA and walks; the latter is not bred, but is the classification for any pony born on Dartmoor. Reading our article
WP:Specialist style fallacy - unless someone is suggesting that the capitalisation of the word "Horse", when it is a proper part of a breed name, makes the "naming and styling issues that other editors and readers, unfamiliar with the field, find strange, impenetrable, inappropriate and/or grammatically incorrect." The issue around a horse breed called "Indian Half-Bred" is to my eyes, completely analogous to a car marque called "Alfa-Romeo" or sometimes "Alfa Romeo" (see e.g. Autotrader for the optional hyphen). Have we ever suggested that such cars be Alfa-romeos or even Alfa romeos? --RexxS (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Not true. The
Wikipedia is not a horse-breeding guide. Finally, the comparison to car models is puerile and absurd. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
That's complete garbage. If you can't tell the difference between "Dartmoor Hill pony" and "Dartmoor pony", you should be keeping clear of making pronouncements on these issues. Please try to understand what our policy on
Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino should be capitalised as "Fabbrica Italiana automobili Torino" because we don't capitalise "Ford automobile". You have given no reason why the car analogy doesn't fit, other than to make your pathetic jibe about "puerile and absurd". You're a disgrace to this discussion and need to think carefully about throwing insults at other editors - it is a sign of desperation and does nothing to help your case. --RexxS (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: It should be noted that this RM is a direct response to the unilateral renaming of multiple articles within the scope of
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but we need to be cognisant of what ArbCom have decided on these issues: "Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account." - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes #Levels of consensus. Should this RM end in no consensus, then I hope that the closer will respect the status quo ante and ArbCom's principle, and accept that the titles should be restored to their previous, stable capitalisation as agreed by WP:EQUINE. --RexxS (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
That sure sounds like "my wikiproject
WP:OWNs these articles". — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Then tell it to ArbCom. They made the decision, not me. You've got the link, knock yourself out complaining. --RexxS (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I am restoring status quo ante pending any new consensus.
WP:RM out of process, especially since you redlinked them (which I've since undone). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose See my repeated interpretation of the MOS here. I do not consider this different than animal species names, and the same conclusions apply. Making exceptions to the general rules of the MOS requires consensus both among the group concerned and the community, and neither of them is present. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, you fail to understand the issue, we are talking about 12 exceptions out of 300 or 400 articles. Plus, breeds are not species, they are human-developed through
This has nothing to do with the differences between species and breeds; it's about English-language usage. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it has everything to do with understanding those sort of differences. In the real world, the English language has developed conventions for naming species and conventions for capitalising proper names. Your attempt to over-simplify how English actually deals with those issues is what has caused these problems; and your refusal to understand that such differences exist is causing this wall-of-text where you feel you have to re-state your own narrow and inaccurate interpretation in response to everyone who has tried to explain to you. --RexxS (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the existing consensus. These decisions are best left to the article writers who understand the topic. SlimVirgin(talk) 00:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Erik Haugen. And if it has to stay at "A" "P", then for heaven's sake not the generic word as well. Tony(talk) 03:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose over-capitalization. Even if breed names are capitalized by some local consensus, extending the caps to non-proper second parts of hyphenated compounds, or to the generic horse or pony, is unnatural and unnecessary. Given the recently firmed-up consensus around
MOS:CAPS, and the commonness of such forms as "Florida Cracker horse" in sources, these particular over-capitalizations of breeds are extreme outliers from WP style, and fixing them was routine and should not have been reverted. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with you in breeds that don't include "horse" in the official name. But the official name of this breed is "Florida Cracker Horse", per reliable source [7]. (see my !vote) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Erik Haugen. It seems like nonsense and capitalisation for its own sake, like commonly overcapitalised terms such as "chairman" "member of parliament". Or the work of buzz-word creators. I note the inconsistency within the batch – "Indian Half-Bred", which lacks the trailing descriptor ("horse/pony/dog/dinosaur"). I would say that it seems to me that most people, even insiders, would refer to the breed name without the trailing descriptor. So capitalising the final word is sincerely over-egging the pudding and then adding meringue and pouring crème anglaise on top, IMHO. In addition, I totally oppose the grammatical nonsense of capitalising the letter after the hyphen, as "half" clearly qualifies "bred" and any previous capitalisation (where warranted) would shift to the first letter of the qualifier. -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I inquired elsewhere if "Honda civic" would also be what you are suggesting? No one here seems to notice that I am notnotnotnot(!)(!) raising a general rule, I am looking at a limited number of exceptions where the argument can be made on a case-by case basis? (And maybe one or two of the above don't need to be there?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)
You could bnot have found a more awful, perverse and
pointy example. We're arguing about inclusion/capitalisation of the trailing descriptor ("horse/pony/dog/dinosaur"). "Honda Civic Car" might have been a better construction of the example. Anyway, "Civic" is a registered brand name thus a proper noun, so your argument fails on both counts. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Nonsense, your point that a brand name is copyrighted proves my point - Most breed registries are corporations and have a registered official name, one that they use for their breed. Just as an example that has nothing to do with capitalization, the Pintabian is a registered trademark, and can legally only be used for horses with both a particular color and a very high percentage of Arabian blood
Irrelevant. The breeds themselves are not trademarks; in the rare cases they are, then yes, we would capitalize them as proper names. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's completely relevant. How on earth did you get the idea that breed names are not trademarks? Of course they are - and I can easily quote for you a newspaper report on a court case: "The Nokota Horse Association contends it owns the legal trademark for the name and says it is not in competition with the conservancy.". Note that 'breed' in this case is used in its broader sense: "... the term is sometimes used in a very broad sense to define landrace animals, or naturally selected horses of a common phenotype located within a limited geographic region", yet is still capable of being a trademark. --RexxS (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Real-world professional standards should trump false Wikipedia standards when it comes to things like this. I firmly believe that accepted titles developed by a professional, governed outside community should be preferred to the mess that is MOS. Intothatdarkness 13:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's called the real world. Wikipedia needs to understand that they will continue to be a joke as long as they make up their own standards while ignoring professional standards. Intothatdarkness 14:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Intothatdarkness. Nortonius (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We must respect the name of the animal per the breed standard. If the word horse or pony is part of the breed name we cannot change that here. To do so is to misrepresent the source. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Support per project consensus and corresponding lack of consensus for the undiscussed moves. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Nikkimaria (it seems to have been done, I was made aware of this only now) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but only when "horse" is part of the breed name. Reference works verify the presence of the word "horse" in some breeds. In International Encyclopedia of Horse Breeds, we have breeds without "horse" (Costeño, American Mustang) and breeds with "horse" (Costa Rican Saddle Horse, American Paint Horse). There is no listing for "Indian Half-Bred", maybe it's not a proper breed name and it shouldn't be capitalized at all? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for all but
Indian Half-bred, where the hyphen precludes a capital "b". This is not rocket science. You can't talk about a Canadian Rustic or a Costa Rican Saddle or a Danish Sport or a Florida Cracker (well, you can, but none of them are horses); those names require the suffix "Horse", which is part of the breed name and thus, like all breed names in Wikipedia and just about everywhere else, capitalised. The same argument does not apply to, say, the Calabrese horse, where the word "horse" is merely disambiguation and the animal would normally be referred to simply as a Calabrese. There may still be some cases among the horse breed articles where the capitalisation fails to follow this basic consensus. There are probably several others that SMcCandlish has moved without discussion or understanding (Esperia Pony is one); I suggest to that editor that from now on any move of a breed article that he/she may be contemplating should automatically be regarded as contentious, and be subject to a move request in the normal way. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm OK with JLAN's assessment of Indian Half-bred due to the hyphen thing. Montanabw(talk) 03:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per project consensus, per Nikkimaria, SlimVirgin, Ealdgyth RexxS Alfa romeo, Intothatdarkness, Nortonius and Gerda Arendt . Also per corresponding lack of consensus for the undiscussed moves in dog articles as well. Like
Dalmatian (dog) to Dalmatian dog... Some breed names include Horse or Pony or Hound or whatever, and then it is part of the NAME. Than it is OK. Otherwise is just a way of making a distinction betweed similar titles (and it should be (dog)(cat)and so on). The dog breed is called Dalmatian, not Dalmatian dog. Dalmatian dog could refer to any dog that is in Dalmatia, or born there, no matter what breed. Hafspajen (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Discussion
1. The capitalization proposed here is inconsistent with other categories and even other horse articles. I have to observe that even before I began doing some consistency cleanup in these categories, virtually every single domestic animal article name that contained the species name after the breed name did so in lower case (e.g.
Dalmatian (dog) to Dalmatian dog is not a good idea, as I as it is now it Dalmatian dog could refer to any dog that is in Dalmatia, or born there, no matter what breed. Hafspajen (talk) And it is 1 user doing this, Sphilbrick. Without discussion. 12:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
2.
MOS:LIFE has been clear on this for years: "English vernacular ("common") names are given in lower case in article prose.... This applies to ... general names for groups or types of organisms". — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
3. Sources do not consistently support the idea that "horse" must be included at all, much less capitalized. What this really comes down to is: "Does a breed like
WP:Specialist style fallacy for a detailed analysis why. But the specialist sources don't even all agree on this. See, e.g. Horse Genetics (Bailey & Brooks, 2nd ed., 2013), which consistently downcases "horse" after the breed name proper, e.g. "the Camarillo White horse"[12]. And here's "the Camarillo White breed" in a U. of Oregon published biology thesis.[13] And so on. I can come up with examples liek this for every single breed name on the list up there, and all the rest of them that should be subject to the same discussion. The fact that horse publications mostly want to capitalize "Horse" is not reason for Wikipedia to do it, too. If we followed that sort of reasoning, we'd simply capitalize everything, since some specialist publication somewhere wants to capitalize it, whether it's art books that capitalize color names, auto suppliers and manuals who capitalize the names of car parts, or ornithology journals and field guides that capitalize the common names of birds. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
4.
Australian Draught horse (lower case); note lack of even one case of "Something Draft/Draught Horse" with "Horse" capitalized. Note next that the landslide majority of cases of an adjectival proper name (usually geo-cultural) is followed by "horse" or "pony". — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with you that lower case should be used. Coreyemotela (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I'm tired of these ridiculous red herring and straw man arguments. NOWHERE have I argued that "all" articles names "must" be followed by "horse"/"pony". I'm arguing for several exceptions. Where a RS for information is not an RS, yet no other RS exists, SMc, it is a trip through the looking glass. Montanabw(talk) 04:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded list of articles that could be affected
Collapsing a list of red herrings not at issue here
Various other articles in Category:Horse breeds will also be directly affected by the outcome of this discussion, but simply weren't moved before the RM launched; they may include:
Every one of these (only a small percentage of the horse breed articles) has exactly the same kind of adjectival, potentially ambiguous breed name, and is either followed by "Horse"/"Pony" capitalized or by nothing, while the majority of the horse (and other animal, including donkey) breed articles, which usually also have potentially-ambiguous adjectival breed names, are instead at names like
I guess this doesn't make any sense to me. Some breed names include Horse or Pony some do not. We don't get to homogenize the breed name to suit Wikipedia. We need to note the definitive source for the breed name, probably the breed standard site and that is what we go with. Unless I misunderstand, you are trying to create some consistency on Wikipedia with horse breed names. That is not what we have license to do. We use the source and this case there is for many horse breeds, a definitive source.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]
See this previous debate which relied on the same argument you are making and resolved to use lower case. Reliable sources on facts about breed traits and history are not reliable sources on how WP should title articles and style them. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was a sad "debate" with a sad outcome, leaving many people unhappy ad some even leaving, - we don't need more of the kind, it's possibly the worst example you could find, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we not overwhelm the discussion with acres of talk page posts, please? There is no need to reply to every single post with the same information over and over again. You've made the points, others have made their points, belaboring the points isn't helpful to other readers who might want to weigh in. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely normal for RMs and RfCs to have "Discussion" sections below the !voting for longer material; the entire point is to keep the longer material out of the !votes. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've collapsed these long sections, which are red herrings that take us off track. This discussion should focus on what's here, the point I think that SMcCandlish is promoting (correct me if I'm wrong), is basically that SMcCandlish wants a hard and fast rule that "horse" or "pony" must always be lower case, regardless of any other rule, no matter what, and possibly that sentence case should be used for absolutely every single animal breed articles on Wikipedia, regardless of any other rule or tradition. If that's the argument, I oppose it. (If it's not, then are there some exceptions?) Our article titles already demonstrate that we mostly go along with sentence case, but that there are a few exceptions. Montanabw(talk) 16:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to repeat your argument while preventing me from allegedly repeating my argument (I actually presented four different arguments all of which can be separately addressed; if you and the rest of the equine project would rather hide them than address them, that looks a lot like conceding). I've uncollapsed the discussion points. No one will discuss them if they're hidden, and at least one other editor has been trying, so you're censoring others besides me. The article titles do not demonstrate that the horse articles are mostly following sentence case; the list you're trying to hide proves that this is far from the case, and the entire category is a confused mess. Finally, I never said there could be no exceptions; I'm arguing that you're not making any kind of clear case that these are exceptions. If you are convinced that few if any of the longer list of articles would be effected by the outcome of this debate, then let's move all of them to lower-case "horse" and "pony" right now. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SMc, I'm arguing for the exceptions here, to the ones you moved. The rest of this discussion needs to move to WikiProject Equine. Montanabw(talk) 04:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem not to understand that you have to wait for the discussion to be closed, and until the discussion is closed, article names have to be the way they were before it started. You should never have moved without a discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sooo, indeed. Well. Bolonese...dog, Armant dog... Hm, same editor, no consensus. And one more, Akbash dogAkita dog, Barbet dog, Billy dog???? this sounds plain silly - and no consensus just somebody acting. The breed is called Akita, not Akita dog, Bolonese, not Bolonese dog, Akbash and not Akbash dog... This is just silly.
Billy dog, right... I certainly didn't see any discussion about re-naming. This will be a matter for Dog task forces, asap. You should never have moved without a discussion. Hafspajen (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I just saw the changes to dog breeds and am quite alarmed by these changes which besides lacking consensus as you point out is just inaccurate. The breed is Akita not Akita dog and so on as you point out. Not sure what to do about this.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Sigh. Also cattles, and pigs are mass-moved. Hafspajen (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cats, ducks, turkeys, pigeons and goats too. The full list is here. Some of those moves are good and for valid reasons; some are not. In my opinion, not one of them should have been made without discussion. I'd suggest notifying the other various WikiProjects of this discussion as a first step to sorting this out (Agriculture, Birds, Cats, Dogs, which others?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Things are getting out of hands. AND, there is no such thing as
Billy dog. Is that a dog called Billy or Bill what? Just look at the article, the BREED is called Billy. Hafspajen (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Gosh, this is a real nightmare, this list. Like move
Przewalski's Horse to Przewalski's horse... What Przewalski's horse?? His own horse he use to ride, Lucky, Cocoa, Duke or Misty or what? Przewalski's Horse is CALLED Przewalski's Horse. Man, what a mess. Hafspajen (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
OH DEAR GOD IN HEAVEN DON'T BRING THAT ISSUE HERE!!!!' The standard is really very simple: If there is no other WP:PRIMARY, then use the official name (i.e.
WP:NATURAL disambiguation. (i.e. Andalusian horse, Andalusian donkey). Where there is a naming issue, use parentheses (i.e. Secretariat (horse). Where there is a capitalization or other naming dispute, as here, then go to the talk page of the article in question argue about it for six months, get a couple people banned for edit-warring, and whoever is still standing at the end gets to do it their way. At least, that seems to be how it works. :-P Montanabw(talk) 21:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Przewalski's Horse to Przewalski's horse? It is hardly appropiate. We will se what we will do with the others - Justlettersandnumbers is QUITE right, notifying the other various WikiProjects of this discussion as a first step to sorting this out ... I think that was a very good suggestion. Hafspajen (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hafspajen, one crisis at a time please. Title case versus sentence case capitalization of breed names is way bigger than the issue here; I am merely trying to preserve a few names that unambiguously (I thought) need title case. Montanabw(talk) 22:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understand your reluctance. However, McCandlish moved something like 400 articles. Many more than those listed above were mistaken moves for exactly the same reason. I've already mentioned
Przewalski's Horse falls into the same category - you can't talk about a "Przewalski's", so the word "Horse" is part of the name, exactly as argued for the APH. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't disagree, it's just that the problem is SMC is taking the opposite extreme, is absolutely vicious to anyone who disagrees with him (in spite of an Arbcom decision telling him not to) and has apparently already destroyed the birds project, running off multiple editors. Until the broader issue of Sentence case capitalization in article titles versus Title Case capitalization is dealt with wiki-wide, (as well as the fate of tendentious bullies) this issue will never go away. I'm just trying to keep my foot wedged in the door to keep it from being slammed shut completely (ouch!). It's going to take an army to deal with the Title Case capitalization issue across all the animal articles and I for one cannot do it alone. And Hafspajen's issue is actually parenthetical disambiguation versus natural disambiguation and that isn't the issue on this page. Montanabw(talk) 18:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, too late now. Anyway, move that issue too Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs. And thanks for all good advices, everybody who gave some. Very useful. Hafspajen (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.
Related RM
I started Talk:Przewalski's_horse#Requested_move, since "horse" is also part of that breed name. There is a very small percentage of horse breeds with "horse" in the name, there should be only a few breeds left to move. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a species not a breed. Not even relevant. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss that over there, not over here. Montanabw(talk) 19:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 3 external links on American Paint Horse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
