Talk:Bit (horse)

message: Why not put this at horse bit and avoid the dab? Snoutwood 09:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we call it a "bit."  When horse people are looking for info on the topic, they type in "bit."  Montanabw 22:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But (generally) they're not going to type in bit (horse). They're probably going to go Bit → Bit (disambiguation) → Bit (horse). So if they're going to come here through the bit dab, why not have it link to horse bit rather than bit (horse)? That way, we don't need the unnecessary parenthetical dab, and I can imagine typing in horse bit as a pagename guess. Snoutwood 06:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: Should some mention of this phrase be made on this page? That's actually the reason I came to this page. Doktor Waterhouse 06:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champing/chomping at the bit 

message: Montanbw, going to have to disagree with your last minor edit ("noseband or neck strap"). I don't think we need a disambig here, and also thinking the writing doesn't sound as good. Let's keep it simple. --AeronM (talk) 14:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Una gave me the idea by pointing out the neck strap thing (actually it's on one of your bitless bridle sites, should have sourced it at the time, will find it later).  You do not own these articles any more than anyone else.  So let's just leave these things be.  Montanabw(talk) 05:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps your time might be better spent rounding up some sourcing needed in the Effects paragraph. --AeronM (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor edits

message: Many show societies, sale agents and race clubs require lead horses to use a bit when they are paraded. In racing this is usually the anti-rearing bit. Sometimes colt ring or stallion bits are used but they are less fashionable now.Cgoodwin (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Bits

message: I have removed unsourced (and at least partially inaccurate) information from this article, per policy. This section had been tagged since February of 2011, which is more than ample. Please abide by policy and do not re-add this content in violation of WP:V, one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Do not under any circumstances merely revert, adding in the incorrect spelling of "Champing at the bit (or mistakenly as chomping at the bit " - the correct spelling is "chomping", please look this up on Wiktionary at the very least. Blanket reversions to re-introduce longstanding unsourced content is not recommended. If you wish to include content, the onus is on you to locate the sourcing for it. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You offer no argument that the content is inaccurate.  And do not template the regulars, nor give orders as you are doing above. Best of all:  Get off your duff and IMPROVE THE ARTICLE, don't just remove things and lecture other people to do your work for you, I have 3,000 articles on my watchlist.  If we delete everything unsourced from wikipedia, we will delete 2/3 of the encycopedia.  Furthermore, you are utterly clueless to insist upon deletion of an entire section, when your issue is with ONE WORD.   Montanabw(talk) 22:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the POLICY, as you put it, is that unsourced material 'may be' challenged and - IF not verified - removed, not just randomly blanked because someone else put an old tag on it a long time ago but let it languish forever and thus obviously was only noting that the section needed more sources.  I don't think you were the person who put the ref tag on the section originally, but because you (incorrectly) disagreed with one sentence you tore down the house when you COULD have actually just rewrote the sentence with a source, but then, you'd see that it actually WAS correct. (and, years back, the section DID say "chomping at the bit," which someone - not me - changed and corrected to "champing")  But no, you nonetheless blanked the entire thing, and failed to follow WP:BRD and discuss your concerns, instead, YOU chose to put in snotty, preachy edit summaries, then edit war with ME, ordering and demanding that I hop to your tune, when I happen to have a lot of other things ahead of this article in the queue.  Now, I've said my piece, so please have your last word and let's be done with all this.  Montanabw(talk) 04:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy. Let's focus on being civil. At least on the articles that I work on, discussion in a neutral manner is always the most helpful to all parties, even in the face of hostilities. Just my 10c. Jesse V. (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed content 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bit (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/20080406045511/http://www.trsa.com.au:80/racing/glossary.html to http://www.trsa.com.au/racing/glossary.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nurturalhorse.com/Files/The_Bitless_Revolution_KH.pdf
*Added  tag to http://cvm.msu.edu/research/research-centers/mcphail-equine-performance-center/publications-1/usdf-connection/USDF_Dec05.pdf
*Added  tag to http://cvm.msu.edu/research/research-centers/mcphail-equine-performance-center/publications-1/usdf-connection/USDF_May06_Clayton.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.horse-canada.com/archives/trainers-talk-bits-hilary-clayton-on-bit-position/
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) 08:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bit (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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trsa.com.au/racing/glossary.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130629040440/http://www.equisearch.com/uncategorized/dr-hilary-clayton-offers-many-prescriptions-bits/ to http://www.equisearch.com/uncategorized/dr-hilary-clayton-offers-many-prescriptions-bits/
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) 03:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bit (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/20070208184648/http://equisearch.com/horses_riding_training/tack_apparel/bit_gallery/ to http://www.equisearch.com/horses_riding_training/tack_apparel/bit_gallery/
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) 19:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the archaeological (and horse genomics) literature, the discovery of alleged "cheekpieces" is mentioned as evidence for domesticated horses. According to the description in this article, however, this is a misnomer, because cheekpieces either denote "bit shanks" (in fact only used with a curb bit), or rather the straps running down the sides of the horse's face. What they instead mean are the snaffle toggles or discs, corresponding to today's side pieces in the form of toggles, rings or olive-like thickenings of the mouthpiece, intended to prevent lateral slippage as well as serve to fasten the bridle and are technically referred to as "bit guards", if I have understood the description here correctly.HJHolm (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misnomer in archaeological literature? 

message: I find it misleading that the first image in the article doesn't actually show a bit. Instead it shows a horse with a bit in its mouth, necessitating a disclaimer: "The bit is not the metal ring". Would it not be better to start with a picture of a bit on its own, and later have a picture of a horse with one? Ribidag (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switch first picture?