Talk:Friesian horse

message: I removed the reference to the film "300" as the horse this article is referring to is not a Friesian, but a Cheval Canadien. They are very similar in appearance, but that film being shot in Canada makes it quite unlikely the horse is a Friesian.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifelike001 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved it back.  http://www.fhana.com/ says Friesian = right, Frisian = wrong.  Please discuss spellings that are terms of art with those who care before being quite so bold.  Montanabw(talk) 20:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, okay then, if you say so! But the Frisian people are also known as Fries in Dutch, but as Frysk in their own, and as Frisians with one i in English. Thats why I got doubts. -The Bold Guy- 17:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Horse people just have to be weird, I guess!  (smile). Montanabw(talk) 21:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no idea what you mean by this?? In English, the breed is spelled "Friesian," regardless of other spelling conventions for other things.  Montanabw(talk) 22:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  FHANA's bussiness is horse breeding, not thinking about the finer points of English spelling of "Frisian". No serious book on the history of the Frisian horse uses "Friesian" as spelling in English. My goodness, FHANA indicates the bybooks as B-books! Good on horses, but translations and spelling... Some people say this, some people say that, OK? --ThW5 (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled / Spelling

message: There is an error on the description of the Friesian Horse.
In the film "LadyHawke", the Name of the horse is not 'Othello', but "Goliath".
Just a trivia note!
Thanks!
Colte
 
The name of the equine actor was Othello, not the character he played   09:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from article

message: "In the 1800s the Friesian was bred to be lighter and faster for trotting, however this led to what some owners and breeders regarded as inferior stock, so a movement to return to pureblood stock took place by the end of the century." 
What is the source for that? The trotter WAS somewhat lighter than the typical horse from the LATER farm period, but as far as I know there is NO indication that the horses were ever bred on purpose FOR their trotting qualities, be it in bodytype or otherwise.--ThW5 (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: Can we find a pic for a chestnut Friesian?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.110.74 (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because the registry is trying to get rid of them and there aren't supposed to be any?  Montanabw(talk) 05:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Chestnut Friesians

message: new article] :"Megaesophagus, a chronic dilation of the esophagus in conjunction with a lack of normal tone or strength, appears to occur at an atypically high rate in Friesian horses, according to a report in the proceedings from the 10th International Congress of the World Equine Veterinary Association. The report authors suggested that this might be considered a hereditary problem in the breed."  
Needs to go into the article, just as we list genetic difficulties for other breeds and just as the dog breed articles list the genetic problems there.  Montanabw(talk) 19:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic disorders 

message: * http://www.thehorse.com/articles/33222/friesians-blood-work-alike-but-different  ON blood chemistry.  Interesting.  Montanabw(talk) 23:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sources for article upgrade 

message: Another interesting horse breed with a family connection 
(my mum) for me, but I'm no expert, far from it, so just a few thoughts, and leaving the rest to the experts.
The lead seems a bit "soft". It should  more completely summarize what's in the article.
There seems to be a lack of sources in general. I haven't looked at the sources themselves  to know if the sources used are good RS, I'll take a look and add a cmt here. 
What about delineating breed characteristics, registry, and judging/competing, although I realize they are interconnected. Colour for example is more diverse than is allowed in a show situation? (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely.  We need more sources, more solid material, etc.  If you want to see a FA-class breed article that is abut a kind of similar horse (at least, European origins and kind of heavy type), try Haflinger or Andalusian horse. For general guidelines, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Equine/Horse_breeds#Structure_of_Articles.  I don't fiddle with the lead until the body of the article is up to speed, otherwise it gets rewritten a zillion times.  The color thing is quite interesting; the breed mainstream wants them black, black and did you say black.  However, due to genetics, a chestnut occasionally pops out (complicated to explain here, but if interested, read the articles black (horse) and chestnut (coat). If you are interested, I suggest starting with the United States Equestrian Federation rulebook for Friesians, and go from there.  https://www.usef.org/documents/ruleBook/2014/14-FR.pdf  They also have a link to the mainstream registry that is the USEF affiliate and promotes the breed.  From there, maybe look at the organizations in Europe, etc.  I'll keep popping by with more ideas. Montanabw(talk) 00:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to be away from home  for a week with family,but hope to do a little as time allows. Just Ignore my cmt on my user page. I wrote it before checking here and reading this. So yes, sources. I started to check some of them. Some are definitely better than others. Definitely good to start with the national associations. Same procedure with dog breeds.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'be done some reorganizing. If anything I do creates misinformation just revert me...:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  Using the dog breeds guideline, if you are already familiar with it, is fine, the horse breeds task force guidelines are probably similar, and everyone knows I don't hesitate to revert anyone! LOL!  Montanabw(talk) 21:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick note

message: Some minor cosmetic changes by  were recently undone here. I was wondering why? The infobox is indeed , while "Infobox Horse" is a redirect; the disambiguation page is indeed at Frisian, not at ; and so on. Overall, they were an improvement, I think; was the revert perhaps over-hasty?
I notice that the language variety of this article was clearly established with , and seems to have been incompletely migrated to another over the course of the years; unless there are good reasons not to, I intend to restore the original variety per WP:ENGVAR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that revert probably was over-hasty, the main thing is that we are careful to note that we have 350 horse breed articles, and the template redirects or transcludes or whatever it is... just like we renamed the racehorse infobox that is on 1000s of articles, doesn't mean we go into every article and change the name... the dab thing, sigh, whatever the rule is this week, it keeps changing, so whatever.  Montanabw(talk) 05:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

text: However on ENGVAR, I realize that the "whoever created the article gets the nod" rule is one way to settle a huge pissing match where there is one, but here, I see no compelling reason other than that to switch; the breed is Friesian, not British, so the language of origin issue is irrelevant, and frankly, it's a "flavor of the month" in the USA where it's very popular.  I don't care deeply enough to fight about it, but given that most of the English-language source material appears to be coming out of the USA and not the UK, I guess if you really want to do all that work, it's your party, but it seems unnecessary.  Montanabw(talk) 05:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox etc 

message: I've reverted the thumbnail which does not serve the purpose of a close-up. With a close-up we should be able to scrutinize closely, to see more. That can't happen when the image is too small.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Closeup" refers to the distance of the shot, not the display size of the image. To scrutinize closely one need merely click on the image to view it at full size. If you are displaying the image as a thumbnail (as you are doing here by having the |thumb parameter applied) rather than at full or a specified size, and the image is portrait-oriented, the proper procedure is to apply the upright parameter (|upright) so that the Wiki syntax knows that the image is taller than it is wide, and will automatically adjust for this depending on the user's display (desktop vs. mobile) and preferences (users can adjust their default thumbnail size in Preferences, under "Appearance"). Without |upright, the Wiki syntax incorrectly interprets the image's width as greater than its height, which mucks up how it displays on different devices and with different user preferences. If your desire is to show greater detail via a larger display size, you can use a scaling factor as described at WP:THUMBSIZE (note that is a policy page; Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Thumbnail sizes elaborates further). In this case I do not see the a need to upscale, as neither the image caption nor any text in the section adjacent to the image describes anything about the characteristics of the horse's head, so displaying the image at an increased size does not increase a reader's understanding. In any case, this is an upright image and should therefore use |upright for correct syntax. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with IllaZilla. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. However, my thought is for the casual reader and the quick glance in which case a close up, and yes one purpose of a  close up is  to see detail, is a better alternative. I have no problem with someone else reverting if there is agreement to do so. I won't revert myself since I don't agree with a revert but please feel free.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

text: IllaZilla, don't lecture me about image sizes, I have been around here longer than you have. The page you linked says "Sometimes a picture may benefit from a size other than the default." Here, there was a reason for doing so.  (And, by the way, I saw your changes to other articles and kept them, FWIW).  FreeKnowledgeCreator, "Me too" is simply a WP:TAGTEAM discussion.  That said, this article needs some overall work and there is a good argument for the image to be placed in a different location, but the smaller size is not helpful to assess the details of this particular horse, which is a breed that is black in color, and the smaller images get muddied. People don't want to open a dozen windows, they want to compare and contrast images within the same article it's a readablity and graphic design discussion. Montanabw(talk) 18:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll agree with someone if I want to agree with him. By invoking WP:TAGTEAM, you seem to be implying that I am IllaZilla's meatpuppet or vice versa. That emphatically is not true and has never been true. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that "me too" is not helpful in the least.  WP operates on consensus, not a majority vote. Tag-teaming doesn't imply meatpuppetry, it implies lack of a cogent argument.  Montanabw(talk) 05:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying that you agree with someone is potentially helpful; it can help to establish consensus. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, Montanabw, we've "been around here" about the same amount of time (if you mean editing Wikipedia...if you mean editing articles about horses, I admit you've got more experience in that area). I can see the desire for wanting the head photo to display larger than the default, but I suggest using a scaling factor to achieve that and expanding the caption to describe the distinguishing features of the breed's head. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that makes no sense to me, If we are using an image to be able see a close up of the horse's head, why would we use an image that we can't see well, then add text to explain what we can't see, rather than just use a slightly larger image.  An image presents visual information; having to add text to what we can't see undoes the primary purpose of the image. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what I'm saying, Littleolive oil. I'm saying yes, make the display larger (but do it by using a scaling factor so it will behave properly even if users adjust their thumbnail settings), and add text to the caption explaining what you want readers to be looking for in the image. For example, "Friesians are known for their long, arched necks, thick manes, and 'Spanish-type' heads with short ears and well-chiseled features." That not only tells readers that it's a closeup of the head, buy why you want them to look closely at the head. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I did misunderstand. thanks for clarifying.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the idea of explaining, but WP:CAPTION discourages long image captions; here, we expanded the overall article and I'm fine with the use of the upright parameter as a scaling feature, but where the width default looks better - all images the same width looking more reasonable even if a few are extra-tall - I fail to see how saying "upright-1.5" is better than leaving a default that has the same practical result. At the end of the day, it's probably just a layout decision.  Montanabw(talk) 06:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closeup 

message: Really cute pic:
Do we need this anywhere? Maybe swap out the infobox pic since this is a left-side photo and you can see the conformation better? (It may have upright pasterns, but that might just be my eyes, or the three/quarter angle of the pic..) (It may also not have eyes, but that could just be the hair...😉) White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's an ugly image, looks like he has no neck. I agree that it would be nice to have a left-facing side view, but ... not this one, I think.   Montanabw(talk) 03:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic  

message: Article needs to be updated on the genetic conditions affecting the breed.  Here is an article announcing two genetic tests now available.  Montanabw(talk) 23:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic testing source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Friesian 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218030132/http://www.fhana.com/horsehealth/ to http://www.fhana.com/horsehealth/
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) 05:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Some of the uncited history in the article is covered in Elwyn Hartley Edwards' The Encyclopedia of the Horse (1994) which I picked up at the library. Is this an appropriate reliable source to use for citations?
I was able to find out that Bouma was a book published for the centennial of the KFPS organization. I don't have a copy, but I was able to find it for sale in Dutch online book stores, complete with photographs of the book. So I changed the citation to a book with as much info as I could find.
I have been unable to identify what is Boer's Judging of the Friesian Horse. Any clues?
   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  08:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , Elwyn Hartley Edwards was a noted authority on horses and should be a reliable source; Dorling Kindersley is (or was then) not a specially reliable publisher – the books were produced as a team effort rather than by a single author, and not for an academic market. I have used this source (which I own), but with circumspection. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  An update: I was able to find out today that Judging of the Friesian Horse is a KFPS publication, used to teach judges how to perform evaluations/keurings, and given to student judges at the time of training. I'm told that the authors have changed over time, and was unable to get information on which year of publication would be appropriate for authors deBoer/Minkema/Teekens. Interestingly, the book can be seen at the very beginning of a video I had skip-watched yesterday https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SzNlUqPR-k with a few excerpts throughout the video. It was through that video's description block that I was able to find more about the book here: https://www.tweespan.nl/kfps-beoordelen-van-het-friese-paard-4/    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  05:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources, questions