Talk:Chestnut (horse color)

message: Given the above discussion, it seems that Sorrel (horse) and chestnut (coat) cover the same ground.  Since Wikipedia articles are generally about things and concepts and not words, having two articles on the same topic is a form of content forkery.  They should be merged into one article.  — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 23:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is, if you noticed, four years old and all the editors in the discussion are still active editors AND are all knowledgeable horse owners.  We've discussed this twice and, by default, decided against the merge both times.   For horse people, the distinction does exist in some circles, particularly in the organization AQHA, which has well over a million members, and this makes it more than a mere terminology difference. The fact that modern DNA shows it to be the same color is not going to convince some people.  We have ongoing vandal issues over this in some other articles as well, as a person living in the American west, I've even had heated arguments with people who insist that bright red chestnuts are sorrels and darker brown horses are chestnuts; it may sound nuts to non-horse people, but we fight over the damndest things sometimes.  While there is some argument to favor a merge, there is also a good argument not to.  Montanabw(talk) 19:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean that certain circles see the two as different, but I think that the difference can still be covered in one article.  Note that I'm not arguing that the two terms are the same, only that the articles either overlap in scope (as it seems to me, as a non-horse person) or are so similar that a separate article is unnecessary.  — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 22:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of nuance, the issue is as much "Political" as syntax, plus a major geneticist (Sponenberg) differentiates between the two in at least his older works; he may be pandering to the mob to keep the peace amongst the cowboys, but that alone argues for this split to stay, at least for now.  A merge is probably going to land on me to get it done right because the other person who did the major color genetics content isn't active any more.  The chestnut article in general needs some work and updating, but I have no time to work on it at present.  It would be much better to do a merge in conjunction with a major upgrade, as this can't just be a copy and paste merge, there is some content overlap and frankly I am in no mood to waste time on a discussion that is coming around for a third time in four years.  If your only argument is a "sounds like" one, I don't see that as making a merge a priority, only an option with no real rush.  Montanabw(talk) 06:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so the merge is warranted if done right, though doing it right isn't something anybody can do.  Perhaps we can keep the tags up until you find time?  — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 13:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess. If it's just the two of us, then it's "no consensus" and thus stays as is. I think there is a place to upgrade both articles that may include a merge, but it should all be done as a piece. Montanabw(talk) 19:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chestnut (coat). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051211064124/http://www.ultimatehorsesite.com:80/colors/chestnut.html to http://ultimatehorsesite.com/colors/chestnut.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've only recently become aware of this spelling, apparently still used with at last one breed, Suffolk Punch, but in this country (Australia), "chesnut" was by far the predominant spelling in several States (Victoria and South Australia) in the nineteenth century, as indicated by Trove hits, "chesnut horse" scoring three times that of "chestnut horse". (Curiously, in New South Wales and Queensland the ratios are reversed). Doug butler (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chesnut 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chestnut (coat). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707154422/http://siteexec.aqha.com/association/registration/generalglossary.html to http://siteexec.aqha.com/association/registration/generalglossary.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ultimatehorsesite.com/colors/chestnut.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Sorrel and chestnut are separate articles about the same subject. We should have just one article covering the shared subject of a reddish coat color in horses, and provide an explanation of the ways different terminology is sometimes used. Iamnotabunny (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorrel merge proposal