User talk:Pitke/archive2010

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Pitke,

Sorry, I never paid much attention to the article before you started working on it, so mea culpa for false accusations. And you are right, it could be a chicken or egg question. There was a LOT of stuff there! But I think it's fixed with the extra cites Wotnow added. We could maybe keep an eye on that site to see if it IS a wikipedia mirror, in which case it will impact other articles too! Montanabw^(talk) 23:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Lookit this. [1] vs.

Dole Gudbrandsdal and this 29 January 2008 version

. Long verbatim passages. A randomly selected article, Knabstrupper, seems to be okay, but we have a problem and probably need to check all the other horse articles on "Horse Collection", especially for breeds with little English info going around. Almost all of the site's articles seem to cite two references: the most notable breed registry of the breed, and this Tamsin Pickeral book.

Looks bad, but at least we have hints for where to find English reference from:

• Oklahoma University project mentions Hendricks, Bonnie L., International Encyclopedia of Horse Breeds, Univ of Oklahoma Press, 1995
• "Horse Collection" mentions The Encyclopedia of Horses & Ponies. Tamsin Pickeral

--Pitke (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The question here is probably a chicken or egg one, do you think that site is mirroring wikipedia? (Look to see how close they are for Fjord horse and Icelandic horse -- *I* did the last major overall edits on the Fjord page and Dana boomer took Icelandic to FA using all verifiable sources and so I can guarantee you that we did not access the Scandanavian horse site for those! Thus, if the language is close to verbatim, we know it's a mirror!) Montanabw^(talk) 04:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The editing we see from Wotnow, however, putting that site in with yours, is one reason I am big on including page numbers -- some day, Google Books or something similar will have everything and thus these sources can be verified. You may even want to add that "quote" parameter to the citation template and put in a brief section from the original Finnish. Montanabw^(talk) 04:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As for the other, Hendricks and Okie state have a lot of interchangeable material, one of the other WPEQ editors has the Hendricks book and can check it directly (I think Dana boomer), I'm not particularly fond of either source, but one IS a published book and the other a university-sponsored site, and both in English, so where they do not disagree with your Finnish sources, they are OK. Montanabw^(talk) 04:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, I think we do have a mirror site, at least a partly mirroring one. Pitke (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can find proof in other breed articles, toss me some links. Montanabw^(talk) 02:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Näen hyvää työtä (I see good work - if I got it right).

I have fleshed out the citation for the Minna Lindström (2009). I from various web searches, I worked out that she is a horse trainer, and the editor-in-chief of Know your horse: Journal of Natural Horse Skills. It looks to me like you cited a print version of Number 1, 2009. I found the full name via the following list of library holdings Kaarina library listing (see page 9). I hope this was helpful. See what you think anyway. Wotnow (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Pitke! While I, too, like the analogies to illustrate a point, the problem with them is sometimes that you might have two very similar-looking cases, yet one of them would take you to the proper destination while the other would lead you down the garden path.

The problem with romanization is that we are not looking to find one case where something is handled a certain way and then applying that approach to everything else that looks similar. I don't know much about the romanization of Japanese, so I'm going to take your word for how it's done, but if, when romanizing something, it is customary to use the original language and not Japanese, then that's definitely the approach that needs to be taken at all times. With Russian, it's just not how it's usually done, and our guidelines follow that. For example, there are no major English atlases where the names of places in Russia would be written in Finnish (even if those names are originally Finnish), in German (ever if those names are originally German), or in any other language. Every single time, Russian spelling is taken as the base, and romanization proceeds from there. Finnish/German/etc. names are, of course, continued to be used in historical contexts, but for modern references romanized Russian names are normally used (regardless of the origins of those Russian names). If that's not how it's done with the Japanese names, no one is going to impose the "Russian" rules in that area. After all, if the romanization approach were the same for all languages, we would only have one guideline—"romanization of foreign names" :) Instead, a separate guideline exists for Russian, Japanese, Ukrainian, etc. names. That's the way it is in the real world, and that's the way we should be doing it, too.

I hope this addresses your concern. If not, I'll be happy to continue this discussion (yeah, you are right, I'm pretty tired of it by now, but it's a valid question and one important enough to have it explained thoroughly). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:55, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your time. I suppose I understand now. Pitke (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooh-kay... but how can I get the code to show the Commons picture with the same name? Pitke (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I ran into this with a different image a while back, but in my case it was two equally free images, not a free and non-free one. Usually the solution is to rename one image or the other. If the wikipedia image is non-free and thus cannot be moved to Commons and renamed, then I'd try to rename it with a move within en.wiki. If that doesn't work, then take the one you want from Commons, duplicate it, and re-upload it with a different file name, (if it is named "Picture1", rename it "Picture2" or something close), leaving a courtesy notice on the original page alerting those who care that there is a different image with the same name on en.wiki and so you created a duplicate file (and could they please keep this in mind if they consolidate duplicate images at some later date). I'd also alert someone with admin tools about the problem image here needing to be renamed, as really, the Commons image name should take precedence due to being used across multiple wiki projects. Hope this helps. Montanabw^(talk) 04:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have requested a move for the en.wikipedia version as it, as Fair Use image, can only have one or two articles where it could be used; however I couldn't come up with a proper template and decided to leave it up until later. Most English language templates I remember are probably Commons-specific, as {{bad name}} didn't work as expected. Pitke (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe find out where it is used and see if you can move it yourself or not, and if you do, fix the incoming links. If not, Call on an admin or something. Usually if you can find a real human being with the right toolset, anything can be fixed. Montanabw^(talk) 18:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have discovered a new horse color! Palomino + rolling in MUD! (LOL!) Only problem is that I can't tell if now she's a silver dapple or a smoky black! :-D Oh, now I remember why I usually own darker-colored horses... =:-O Actually, this is further proof of my favorite working theory: Horses, with their penchant for knowing just how to get the most attention possible from humans with the least amount of effort, are actually 1000-lb. cats! Montanabw^(talk) 02:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Tee-hee, here's to you from prof. Phonenberg: mud consisting mainly or purely of some cool coloured or bluish clay on palomino base (ee (A:__) Cr+) contributes for a silver mouse dun with more or less golden pangaré. Mud with richer shade, possibly with humus and/or droppings, on palomino base, enables a warmer tone, identifiable as a silver/nonsilver smoky black or a chocolatemystery-factor-affected sooty palomino. ;> Pitke (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Precisely! Now where's your Nobel Prize in genetics?? Of course, in my case, it's alluvial river-bottom (with manure accents) but oddly enough, the mane shed off most of it, so definitely silver dapple! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 23:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My Nobel prize? I think we should thank Prof. Phonenberg, my ever-so-alert

OR. Pitke (talk

) 09:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I seriously dig that barnstar! I've sometimes contemplated making a "halfassed" barnstar, utilizing one-half of a good posterior view of equus asinus. I could award myself that one on a daily basis! LOL!Montanabw(talk) 23:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Pitke, I don't spend enough time on Commons to know how to mess with categories, but the "Bosal" stuff is TOTALLY screwed up. It is not a "bosal bridle." No one will ever find it there! Is is a HACKAMORE, or for those who call any bitless headgear with a noseband a "hackamore" (which, actually, is historically more correct), then it's a "bosal hackamore". Bosal Hackamores are the true and original hackamores. (See hackamore for more discussion.) Technically (at least according to the Oxford English Dictionary), a "bridle" is a headstall with a bit, but that's such a subtle nuance that people describe hackamores as a "type of bridle without a bit" even though that's like saying, "an apple is a type of orange, because they are both round fruit, but an apple is red and sweet and with a completely different texture(!)" The more modern "bitless bridles" are something else entirely, primarily the "cross under" models that work off of leverage instead of weight. Given that ALL the images in that category happen to be mine, can you kindly facilitate the renaming of that category as "hackamore" so it is proper? The stuff in the category "bitless bridle" is mostly correct, arguably Olga.JPG, which is a mechanical hackamore isn't -- but it's a weird hybrid thing that isn't really a bit, or a hackamore or a bitless bridle, so I guess bitless bridle is as good a place as any to put it...sigh... looks like I better go check out the tack categories in commons. Sorry, I'm ranting, but I had this issue out with someone about a year or so ago and I'm still stinging over it, even though I pretty much won the war...the battle was bruising. (sigh) So anyway, as you were. Montanabw^(talk) 21:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WHOAH. No kicking with spurs! I didn't even read all of that. (And don't intend to, because I think I know you and your rants, and I can guess what this is all about :P) It's just a little interference issue with my native tongue. You see, suitset stands for any kind of structure that is used to communicate with the horse, has reins, and is attached to its head. See? I'll fix it for you, it isn't a biggie. We just don't have a Hackamore cat yet so... How would you name the cat for bitless bridles, bit-including bridles, and bosals and other hackamores btw? Pitke (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Colloquially, "bridle" is used as a lazy catchall to cover all headgear for riding, but when getting specific, it horribly incorrect to call a hackamore a "bridle." (Just like it's incorrect to call a bridle a "halter") For commons purposes, where multiple languages are used, I suppose Hackamores, in the broadest sense, could be a subcat of "bridle," even though it makes me cringe, but the "bosal bridle" category MUST be renamed "Hackamore" (I don't think there are enough images of different kinds to create subcats off of that). Bridles are headgear with bits, so everything with a bit is automatically some kind of bridle, no problem there. Hackamores control the horse via a noseband, usually a heavy one. The "Bitless bridle" is mostly an invention of one guy (

longeing cavesons and other weird stuff that doesn't fit anywhere else). FYI, if you haven't seen it, check out Glossary of equestrian terms -- we are trying real hard to use both US and UK terms there... some differences are quite interesting. Montanabw^(talk)

21:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Pitke, note User_talk:Kudpung#Talk pages. An editor was upset with the talk page at Talk:Finnhorse and so blanked and archived it with a rather terse template. I restored most of the stuff that is from 2010, got in a bit of a discussion with this person (sigh). By the time you read this, the dispute may be over, but if you want to just check and see. This editor's comment that we have an awful lot of images on the talk page probably IS well-taken, are they arranged over at commons in such a way that we could just put in a link here to that page? Maybe leave in 4 or 5 that are actively under consideration for being added to the article or swapped out? Montanabw^(talk) 06:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Saw it, decided to move galleries onto a user subpage on commons (commons:User:Pitke/Lightbox). On a random note, I've created some hopefully useful subcats on Commons, Category:Facial expressions of horses, Category:Horse conformation, new subcats for Category:Bridle, Category:Views of horses, Category:Horse handlers to name a few. And on yet another note, what would be a good category name for practise/ground bar/kiddie level show jumping? Pitke (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly "schooling show" or "novice competition", at least, those phrases mean something to people in the USA. Also avoids the "practice/practise" thing of UK and US English. When I get back to the high-speed connection at work, I'll try to find the time to look over the other stuff-- photos load too slow when I'm home on the dialup for me to mess with stuff at Commons very much ... :-P Montanabw^(talk) 00:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Follow up': I noticed a terminology error in the commons stuff (I had to peek, even if slow to load): "In-hand" refers to horses being led on the ground, only. If a horse is being led by a rider mounted on another horse, that is called "ponying." As in, "I am going to pony that yearling for exercise," or "that horse is being ponied." I put some awkward edits into the relevant pages on commons because I am no pro at the admin fixes done over there. I cannot tell you if the Brits say "in-hand" for both ground handing and ponying, but in the US we definitely do not -- and we view even "in-hand" as derived from British English -- out here in the west, we just say "leading the horse" (LOL). I also fixed the "fiador" stuff, fiadors are part of a hackamore, a neck rope or collar on a bridle isn't really a fiador in English language use, though they are somewhat related -- there was a nasty edit war over here on en.wiki over that. It's also helpful to cross-link bridles, hackamores and bitless bridles because so many people are confused about the terminology. Montanabw^(talk) 00:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly the reason I'd be happy to have native English speakers popping by every now and then to see how the cats are named. I created a Ponied horses category. Pitke (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My hesitation to get involved at Commons is mostly download speed at home and lack of time while at work. But if you do as you did here and tip me off when there's been some massive work, I would be glad to pop over and comment when asked. Montanabw^(talk) 05:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Just found this on Swedish wiki: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_spotted_pony Can you do a really rough translation and pop it into a new article here on English wiki? I can take it from there to cleanup, tag, add to the list of horse breeds, etc. if you can get the general gist of it over here. You at least have some Swedish language ability, while I would have to run it through Google translation, which would be really scary! We have some refs to this breed here and thus the article would be helpful to have. Thanks!Montanabw^(talk) 01:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

British Spotted Pony. Pitke (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a peek about 30 min from now and make sure I didn't screw up anything on my check. Thanks a million! Montanabw^(talk) 22:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pitke,

I usually tag User:Ealdgyth or User:Dana boomer to do a pre-GA review on horse articles because they are knowledgable horse people with a ton of successful GAs themselves. If you don't want to use the same suspects each time, User:Casliber is a very good GA reviewer too, though I tend to like keeping that person in reserve for helping find a competent person to do the actual review ('cause otherwise you sometimes wind up with a random reviewer who is disgruntled and picky about stupid things, like wondering why we can't just say "baby horse" instead of "foal" ;-P ) Amongst other WPEQ active members, Cgoodwin might enjoy giving it a look over, ditto for User:Josette, Montanabw^(talk) 19:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Prepare to be hated for this XD Because I'll tag them all! Pitke (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Go for it! Montanabw^(talk) 20:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The only thing to stop me is the question "when?"... There are a few things I'd like to do before putting the big wheels in motion. Pitke (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe ask Ealdgyth or Dana to do a pre-pre-pre GA review to flag areas where we may be OK and areas where more work is needed. I already anticipate criticism for the article's length, but that's not a real problem, just something that might come up. (If you want to compare length and detail, see Thoroughbred, our most complex FA. Also, for a long breed article Arabian horse, which is GA). Montanabw^(talk) 00:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI that I am starting on an overall grammar/style review of the article. My intent is NOT to screw up sources or change actual content, only to organize, eliminate redundancy, and simplify phrasing so things are more readable. Sort of a pre-GA cleanup. Feel free to re-tweak anything I screwed up! Montanabw^(talk) 02:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Pitke, I've been working on an article that I'd like to take to GA, and am inviting you to take a look at it as a pre-GA review by an outside eye that knows horses in general but not necessarily is up on the specific field. The article is Sheila Varian. There are additional concerns because this is a BLP (biography of a living person), so I want to be especially careful to tread the fine line of writing a good encyclopedic article that is neither too flowery or flattering, yet is not insulting or upsetting. So, drop a note on that talk page if you have any suggestions or comments. If something in the article desperately needs help, I'll even cover my eyes and say "dive in." (Fair is fair, I've been mucking up Finnhorse for months, after all) Only caveat is that the article is US English and needs to stay there, and the footnoting is sort of unique, User: Jack Merridew was working with some new template designs which kind of are making my head spin, and so I'm not changing them, I'm just sort of going along for the ride. He promised to change them if they create headaches at GA. Montanabw^(talk) 19:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Pitke. You have new messages at Montanabw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If so, would you mind commenting on this discussion on Ealdgyth's talk page, regarding the reliability of a French source? None of us can translate it well enough to figure out if the people writing the page are actually experts or just amateur enthusiasts, so your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Pitke, I don't think I ever thanked you for your quick response to the request above, so I want to do that now: Thank You!! Now, a further request! :) Would you mind checking through the Trait du Nord article (which is what the above discussion was ultimately about) to see if you find anything off about any of the other French sources? I think they're all decent sources (newspapers, French National Stud, etc), but if you could take a quick look and see if I've missed any obviously unreliable ones, it would be fantastic.

Also, give me a ping when you think you're finished with the Finnhorse article and ready to nominate it for GA. I've been watching it develop (fantastic job!), but didn't want to make nitpicky comments until you considered it done. I know I usually leave the picky little formatting things until last on the articles I write, so I don't want to be pointing out things that you already know need to be done! Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I really need completely new eyes to take a look at an article I have been fiddling with, on and off, for years: Cowboy. I'd like to round it up and move 'em out for a GA run, but it's quite a long ways off. I know there are a lot of basic things I have to do, like standardizing and improving the refs, but the thing I need eyes on (because mine have crossed) is the overall organization of the article. Like Finnhorse, there's a ton of stuff, and while a lot of it fits chronologically, not all of it does. (there's cultural and ethnic stuff that sort of spans the whole time period). I doubt it will ever go to FA because it's just so big, controversial and unwieldy, but I think GA is doable. So, if you want to get back at me for all my snarky hidden text and anal-retentive fussiness on Finnhorse, here's your big chance! (LOL!) Like I say, I kind of know all the piddly stuff that has to happen, it's the style, layout, organization and content that's giving me fits. Any comments will be appreciated! Montanabw^(talk) 05:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Pitke. You have new messages at Montanabw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.