Talk:Horse grooming

message: This is an extension of the horse care article. Any suggestions to make it more encyclopedic? Eventer 00:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, even in the US, they often are called "false tails," "fake tails," or even "tail wigs."  Tail extensions is sort of the official rule book name for them.  Montanabw(talk) 06:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that champion is a brand name for false tails. Mention could also be made of plaited tails as for polo and polocrosse.Cgoodwin (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would avoid any brand names, as once one comes in, they ALL come in (sighing).  But you know, the article mane (horse) has a lot of info on the various show styles of manes so that the grooming article doesn't get bogged down.  There is no equivalent article on tails.  I wonder if there should be??  What do you think? (take a look at the mane article as an example)  We have articles on the horse's fetlock, bridle path (horse), back (horse), and withers, so it isn't like anything is too obscure for a horse article!  (LOL!)  Montanabw(talk) 06:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Horse care

message: In the edit summary of this edit, Montanabw wrote: If you thin a tail by pulling from the top of the dock, the horse will look like a punk rocker when the hair grows back!  This remark appears to be in reference to her deleting some content re pulling tails, as if to say no one does that.  Well, that is exactly what some people do and indeed it does look bad as the hair grows.  That's where shaving comes in.  A lot of polo grooms shave the top several inches of the tail whenever they do the roach.  And there's a book on Google Books that shows how to prepare a "competition tail" in detail.   See for yourself. --Una Smith (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punk rocker 

message: The section Tail could use a thorough cleanup.  It has much repetitive text and some internal inconsistencies.  Eg docking is variously described as docking and banging, more than once. There are many tangents, defining terms that should be (or already are)  more thoroughly defined elsewhere.  This article is Horse grooming, not Horse anatomy.  Also, citations are lacking.  Finally, the article is more than a little awkward.  I suggest defining the terms elsewhere, wikilink them here, and reserve this article for detailing what grooming practices are used in each discipline.  --Una Smith (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, the tail section IS mostly used to describe grooming practices.  There is some excess verbiage and perhaps some editing is in order, but "banging" is cutting a tail straight across at the bottom and keeping it long, "docking" traditionally refers to amputation, I don't know where the "cutting it really short but keeping the tailbone intact is also docking" language came from, but according to the one source I found on docking, amputation has been banned in the UK, so maybe that's where that edit came from.  We could expand the article tail or create tail (horse). Montanabw(talk) 06:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Florida Horse Owner's Field Guide says a mud tail is the skirt simply wrapped around the dock (meaning tailbone) in some manner;  a skirt that is braided, then wrapped around the tailbone is a "stick".  I have braided hundreds of polo pony tails but never heard one called a mud tail.  Some clarification is needed here.  --Una Smith (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with your cleanup.  I take it you used this definition.  I have not looked at a polo pony's tail close up so cannot say if the braid used there is the same as the mud tail, and then of course, there are a bunch of variations on the mud tail, some of which might coincidentally be the same as the polo pony braid.  I'm not into polo, so that one is your balliwick. If this helps as a comparison, here is a chat forum with some pictures of one kind of "mud knots." (The photos cut off the tail on my computer, but if you grab them and download, the whole image comes through...) I'm actually rather curious how you compare those examples to the polo pony design! Montanabw(talk) 07:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mud tail

message: I am trying to make this article more repesentative of other horse cultures, especially those in which I grew up (mostly the UK and Europe, but in general those edits also represent Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and surrounding areas.) Right now it's very US-centric, which alienates other users, and the following edits will help correct that. 
I am not sure why my edits keep being changed back to the US-centric version though? Are Wikipedia pages owned by certain people, so that edits have to be approved by the owner? I thought it was an "open source" encyclopedia, so please forgive me if you are the owner and others can't make edits without your approval - I'm new to editing Wiki pages.
Current: 
Metal curry comb or Fitch curry comb: The metal curry comb is not designed to use directly on a horse's coat as the metal teeth can damage the skin and hair. It is a curry comb made of several rows of short metal teeth, with a handle. They are primarily designed for use on show cattle, but are frequently used to clean horse grooming brushes by moving the brush across the metal curry comb teeth every few strokes.
Edit:
Metal curry comb or Fitch curry comb: The metal curry comb is not designed to use directly on a horse's coat as the metal teeth can damage the skin and hair. It is a curry comb made of several rows of short metal teeth, with a handle. In the USA they are used on show cattle, but elsewhere in the world they are used as traditionally designed to clean horse grooming brushes by flicking the brush across the metal curry comb teeth every few brushes in a rhythmical manner.
Reason:
This use of the Fitch curry comb goes back to at least 1888 and it's intended use is on horses, as can be seen from this ad: http://cgi.ebay.com/LAWERENCE-FITCH-CURRY-COMB-1888-ANTIQUE-CATALOG-AD-/110323843061
Current:
From Dandy Brush: Some dandy brushes do double duty as a Water Brush, when moistened in water and used to wet down the hair coat, mane or tail. 
Edit:
Water Brush (separate item)
A medium-soft natural bristled brush used wet to lay the mane, smooth the hairs at the top of the tail, bathe the horse, or prepare the quarters for quarter marks.
Reason:
A water brush must be made of natural bristles to hold more water. Dandy brushes are usually made of synthetic fibers, and are also often too stiff to scrub a horse while bathing - many horses will object.  Ref: page 83 of BHS Complete Manual of Horse and Stable Management. It's also in the UK Pony Club Manual of Horsemanship which I don't have on hand right now to give the page. At the very least my own 10 years of Pony Club ratings through B level, certifications to become a trainer, and all the BHS examiners I've known will correlate that a water brush is a very different thing than a dandy brush!
I hope you can see that these edits are correct.
Djxjs (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of your edits are just plain wrong anywhere, others are outdated or represent poor husbandry.  They have nothing to do with US vs UK use.  The metal curry comb is a waste of money to go out and buy one, people can clean brushes other ways, its just that everyone has the old things around the barn (the one thing they were good for was getting mud off of workhorses) so they were repurposed.  There is no separate "water brush" by manufacturer (except maybe in the UK), and many dandy brushes are made of natural fibers, in fact I can find sources specifically stating that the only "real" dandy brush is made of natural rice fibers.  I am fine with explaining where there are different terms for the same thing, but it does no good to replace one alleged bias with another.  Montanabw(talk) 18:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I have no issue with distinguishing between UK and US terms for the same thing (ala "Headcollar" versus "Halter", "plaiting" versus "braiding" etc.) or discussing different grooming techniques, but the UK did not invent horsemanship, nor grooming, so acting like your way is the only way is equally biased, if not more so.  Older books written by people from the US east coast use similar terminology, but outdated uses aren't appropriate for a modern article.  Montanabw(talk) 18:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

text: "Just because they are used every day" also isn't an argument.   So are metal thinning combs on long-maned horses, which is also improper use, as I am sure you will agree.   Cites in 1861 are also irrelevant.  Archaic uses are not always relevant in the modern world are of little help in a practical article (want to do a "list of historic horse grooming tools," I have no problem with that.)  There are gobs of metal currycombs here in the western USA (heck, I probably have one buried in a tack box somewhere myself, probably rusting) and people still use them here too, right along with wool carding brushes and other repurposed, antiquated and outdated items.  The metal currycomb was invented for one thing:  Getting caked dirt and mud off thick, shaggy coats.  They are fine on cows, shaggy ponies and coarse workhorses.  That's their historic use and anything else is either a repurposing of something around the barn anyway (using them to clean brushes)  or incorrect use (as a grooming tool).  4-H leaders across America have been trying to get kids to quit using them as a grooming tool on horses for decades.  Use them on a modern fine-haired and thin-skinned horse and the animal is going to object, use at all splits hairs and damages a fine hair coat, and a rough user can actually injure an animal's skin.   As for the Water brush/Dandy brush issue, they are basically the SAME THING: A stiff-bristled brush.  It is irrelevant if used wet or dry.  If you have two of them, one wet, one dry, they can be the exact same item.   If a tack catalogue thinks they can get people to buy two of the same thing by giving them different names, then they are clearly going to make more money.  It's a distinction without a difference.   Montanabw(talk) 18:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

text: None of this is "just my opinion," I can back it all up via horse care books in the USA as well as 4-H manuals and probably the USPC manuals as well, though I haven't consulted those for this particular article.   I think that before you continue to write long treatises here, we may want to first get terminology straight, as we may be calling the same thing by different names.  What you are calling a "coil shedding blade" is what I think I am calling a metal curry comb.  In the USA, a "curry comb" without qualifier is the rubber version.  What I would call a "soft bristled" brush or "body brush" here would be a challenge to use for scrubbing, particularly the short-bristled varieties, because it wouldn't get down past the coat surface.  What I'd call a dandy brush does not hurt or damage a horse's skin and is used for water sometimes.  So how about we be sure we are talking about the same things before continuing to snipe at each other? For example, a source I would use here is this book, see pages 60-61 Cherry Hill's book.  Now, I'll admit that she does demonstrate using a metal curry to clean brushes, even though two pages earlier she doesn't list it with the grooming tools, but DOES emphasize the damage it can do if actually used on a horse, so if you want to add that in, it can be sourced, though I will still note my point that it is utterly ridiculous to buy one because you can clean brushes with other tools.  Montanabw(talk) 22:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horse grooming page 

message: The sheath cleaning article is specific to stallions and geldings.  It's TMI for this article, which covers general grooming.  Sheath cleaning, like body-clipping or other more complex grooming, is beyond the scope of this article.  And Jarble, wasn't it you who wanted it a separate article originally???  Montanabw(talk) 23:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't want it to be a separate aritcle, but you converted it into an article after I converted it into a template. Jarble (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No merge