Talk:Azteca horse

message: The information about the breed classifications is useful, but not well presented here. Probably each subsection could be fleshed out to a paragrpah or so. Kerowyn  Leave a note  20:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cleanup

message: http://www.ultimo-rrl.com/info_azteca.php
Please see the above link. It looks like the article was copied almost word for word without citing the website.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.210.242 (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be, no problem with me if someone wants to clean up this article.  It does need some help.  Montanabw(talk) 04:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagarism? 

message: Contains BY:-righted photos of an Azteca. Countercanter (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More photos 

message: In the light of the criticism above of my description of a reference in Summerhays' Encyclopaedia for Horsemen (1975) as "the usual blithering twaddle, made up yesterday by someone with insufficient education to see how silly it is", I would like formally to apologise to Stella A. Walker, editor of that edition, and indeed to the late R. S. Summerhays himself. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may have missed the point here.  I'm going to WP:AGF and choose to believe that what you've just done here was not intended to be as sarcastic and pointy as it reads, i.e. that you're not offering an apology to anybody else.  Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think JLAN and I understand each other perfectly.  Perhaps a sandbox created on totally neutral turf would be a good place for both of us to go play, as we appear to have mutually ordered each other off our own talk pages.  Montanabw(talk) 16:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal apology

message: I propose rewording the Uses section as follows, in order to include the primary use and other material relevant to the Mexican breed in its home country:
:The Azteca horse was bred specifically for use in the national sport of Mexico, charrería, to which it is perfectly suited.El Caballo Azteca (in Spanish) Alta Escuela Mexicana de Jinetes Domecq, 2010. Retrieved 2012-01-04. "The Azteca horse". It is ideal for rejoneo or mounted bull-fighting; the rejoneador Pablo Hermosa de Mendoza  has used horses of this breed both in Europe and in the Americas. It is also used for alta escuela or classical dressage, for polo, for doma clásica or dressage, as a police horse, and for traditional activities such as doma vaquera and working equitation, la garrocha or exhibition riding with the long lance used in acoso y derribo, baile or horse-dancing, fiestas and parades.Versatilidad y Elegancia (in Spanish) AMCCRA Asociación Mexicana de Criadores de Caballos de Raza Azteca, A.C. Retrieved 2010-01-11. "Versatility and elegance".Caskie, Donald M. (Azteca Horse Association of Canada) Azteca: a horse custom-built for performance, style and tradition Retrieved 2012-01-04. The Azteca horse may also be used for driving,Enganches de Caballos  (in Spanish) Alta Escuela Mexicana de Jinetes Domecq, 2010. Retrieved 2012-01-11. "Horse driving". in western riding events such as reining, cutting, team penning and roping, and for pleasure riding.Dutson
Would that be acceptable to others? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict) See below for both this and the other.  Montanabw(talk) 21:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses section 

message: I'd like to propose the following revised wording for the lead section, with the aim of reducing the current undue weight on the American variant of this breed, and making it clear that while similar, it is distinct.
:The Azteca is a breed of horse from Mexico. It is the first horse to have been created there, and was purpose-bred for the Mexican national sport, charrería, as a replacement for the Mexican Criollo horse, whose numbers had seriously declined during the Mexican revolution. It is a well-muscled horse that may be of any solid color, and was developed in Mexico from 1969 by cross-breeding of Andalusian, American Quarter Horse and Mexican Criollo bloodlines. The studbook is jointly held by the Mexican government and the Azteca breeders association.
:A similar but distinct breed, the American Azteca, is registered by two associations in the United States. Both permit the addition of American Paint Horse blood, and pinto coat colors.
Would that be acceptable to other editors? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No changes to the lead. Distinguishing the "American Azteca" as a separate breed is OR, it's just a different registry, though with consensus it would be OK to note that the American registries allows APHA breeding (which is, basically, Quarter Horse breeding anyway, so there is no real distinction in the underlying bloodlines, only registry politics)  No evidence that Charreria is the national sport of Mexico, "perfect" and "ideal are peacock terms, and someone other than myself needs to review the sources for their compliance with the GA standard.  But maybe, if there is consensus that the material is not UNDUE and conforms to the GA standard.  And sort of like Percherons barrel racing, just because they can in theory do it, doesn't mean they should -- find one example of an Azteca doing a good job at polo (I doubt it, wrong body build), team penning, or roping (maybe, but show me photos), and I shall reconsider such claims.  However, you want to propose changes that improve the article, then please agree to get rid of stupid chart and allow a reword to the last stable version (where Dana agreed to some of your edits) before we move forward and add yet more material.  Montanabw(talk) 21:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: Protection template is off. Overwhelming consensus is to remove the charts, so I did so.  I restored the material on the American Azteca registry as no consensus to create a content fork.  I kept JLAN's material on the Mexican registry standard.  Dana, will you review my edits and see if this keeps things at the GA standard you so painstakingly worked for? It is my intent that just the charts were tossed, all other material on both sides of the dispute was kept, with some very minor copyediting to enhance clarity.  Montanabw(talk) 21:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agree that consensus was to ditch the charts; I've put them here in case (which I doubt) anyone wants to see them. They are not published in English anywhere else as far as I can see. I've added the suggested Uses section, I hope w/o peacock terms. The uses are all referenced to either the AMCCRA, the Alta Escuela Mexicana, or to Dutson. The lead section still needs attention IMO. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The charts should not have been put in their own article - it's a content fork. The consensus was that the charts be tossed altogether, not given their own article. Definitely not a notable subject for its own article. I haven't had a chance to look at the changes to the article in the past couple of days - I've been off-WP, and honestly, the bickering and tendentious editing seen here is really sapping my interest and enthusiasm for the project. Come on, JLAN, you know better than to create content forks with non-notable material!!!! Dana boomer (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If a sub-article expands on summary information in the parent article, it's not a content fork, it's a  - so long as the sub-article doesn't start covering additional topics from the parent. My suggestion above to put the tables into their own article was to use that article to compare and contrast the breed standards between countries. The Mexican standard seems to differ from the AAHIA  in that it allows more combinations. I find that interesting, and it could be expanded with info about how/why the differences exist. That (IMO) keeps the main article clean and still expands coverage. And of course, the sub-article will still use hands as the primary unit of measurement, right? Franamax (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec with Amatulic below) I just don't think that the breeding charts are notable enough for their own article. The Mexican standard uses crosses from three breeds (Criollo, Quarter Horse and Andalusian), and then gives the crosses alphabetical names (Azteca A, Azteca B, etc), depending on the percentages of the various breeds. The American registry uses four breeds (Criollo, Quarter Horse, Andalusian and Paint) and does essentially the same thing. Its combinations of the same 3/4 breeds, just differentiations based on percentages. This is explained (or at least it used to be) in the article - we just didn't have the charts. I have no problem with this information being in the article - it's just that having the charts in there makes it way too much detail. We can say "The Mexican registry separates horses into x number of categories, based on the percentages of blood from the three parent breeds. The American registry separates horses into y number of categories, based on the percentages of blood from the four parent breeds." There's no need to give the specific percentages of blood and every possible combination - it's way too much information for the general reader. This article is not too long. The information can be given here - in prose. It's the visual ugly-ness and TMI of the charts that we are protesting to. Dana boomer (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Admin comment: Because that new article is a possibly copyright violation of the cited source and consensus appeared to be to remove it, I have userfied that page to User:Justlettersandnumbers/Cross-breeding tables for the Azteca horse. Something like that doesn't belong in main space as a stand-alone article. I'll add that it's always good practice, if you want to preserve material that would be removed from an article, to save it in your own user space. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Second admin comment: agree with userfying, at least until it can be exapnded as I was suggesting. Disagree with doing it because it's a possible copyvio, I nuke those from whatever space I find them in. However I don't think the info is copyrightable, as no creativity is involved in reciting a simple list of facts. If it was a fancy flowchart or presented in a non-standard way, then maybe yes, but it's really just a plain comprehensive list. All seems good for now... Franamax (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I wish you could all make your minds up. I followed a suggestion from an editor whose opinion I respect. If that was wrong or it was a copyvio or a content fork or just too much information for the general reader, whoever or whatever that may be, I apologise. I don't see that the material is of any conceivable use to me or to anyone else in my user space, and have db-ed it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the whole point of userfying is to say "this information is of no use to anyone right now the way it stands, but could be made so, so we'll put it in your user-space so you can polish it up and ask other editors for advice on it". We don't like to throw things away if we can salvage them, and I've made lots of edits in other people's userfied pages to help get an article ready for prime time. But of course it's your own choice to have your own work permanently deleted. Franamax (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: JLAN, please seek consensus on your edits.  When you make solid suggestions, they are adopted.  When you make suggestions and consensus goes against you, Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.  Montanabw(talk) 23:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Azteca 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  tag to http://www.caballoazteca.org/IMG/doc/Esquema_OFICIAL_de_cruzamiento_AMCCRA.doc
*Added  tag to http://www.caballoazteca.org/spip.php?article3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110623022542/http://www.caballoazteca.org/ to http://www.caballoazteca.org/
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) 03:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified