Talk:Finnhorse

message: I like the Murto shot.  There is a need for good standstill conformation shots, there are already a lot of nice trotting photos, though if one of the three you proposed is added, either new or to replace something else, I suggest File:Helmi.jpg as the best quality image, though the File:Eri-Aaroni.JPG may be of use to replace a different historical image, the horse is gorgeous.  I made some other tweaks, or will be making some other tweaks. Montanabw(talk) 19:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stuff and assorted thoughts 

message: OK, here goes. I'll keep adding to this list as I find new spots:
* The Crossbreeding section is a somewhat confusing mix of crossbreeding to improve/change the Finnhorse breed and crossing the Finns with other breeds in order to improve those breeds. Also, there is a great deal of redundancy between this section and the Influence on other horse breeds section, especially in the information on the Tori horse. My suggestion would be to move all information relating to the improvement of other breeds to the latter section and eliminate all redundancy.
::The Tori horse section in the Crossbreeding section has been discussed previously for the exact same reason. My excuse for it still existing is that the description of the late 19th century Finnish horse is most valuable as a part of the breed history section and would feel off-place in any other place. The parts left in the Crossbreeding section were previously somewhat pruned to stay more in topic, and most of the Tori project details were left for the Influence... section. I boiled it down some more, is it better/ok now? Pitke (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Stay tuned and keep an eye on developments...the Finnish cavalry bit is of interest because they started out on Finnhorses...that does need to be made more clear. Pitke, I may let you tackle some of the rest of this...or if I do, double-check to see that I didn't screw up anything.  Montanabw(talk) 23:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed parts of the Military use section. Been looking for the quote source for a long time, and just realised why I haven't been able to find it - it's from the separate History of the Finnhorse article in fi.wikipedia, and source-wise that article is a complete disaster. The source list is impressive, but close to none ref tags have been employed, and some sources listed have been a discussion via phone, "family knowledge", and a local exhibition in 1989 *SIGH* The moment I get this article translated into Finnish, I'll delete that abomination! *foam* Pitke (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IF relevant, move the stuff you've written to a related article (like Tori (horse)) if you can, there was so much good work here.  Montanabw(talk) 23:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The stuff I removed was an already boiled-down version of what's currently in the Influence in... section. If needed and relevant, the original one-piece paragraphs can be found from this article's history as they were, in any case. Pitke (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundancies

message: I'm still a little uncomfortable with the way the top half of the article is laid out. It seems to jump around quite a lot, which may have to do with the order of its sections. Here's the current layout:
:1 General breed characteristics
:2 Studbook evaluation
:3 Breed sections
::3.1 Draught type
:::3.1.1 Working tests
::3.2 Trotter type
::3.3 Riding horse type
::3.4 Pony-sized Finnhorse
:4 Colour selection
Here's my proposal: 
:1. General breed characteristics
::1.1 Colour
:2. Breed sections
::2.1 Draught type
::2.2 Trotter type
::2.3 Riding horse type
::2.4 Pony-sized Finnhorse
:3 Studbook evaluation
::3.1 Working tests
As is is currently, the studbook evaluation and working tests section feel odd coming in the middle of the breed types - I think they would be better placed together after the information on characteristics. The color information also feels odd coming after all of the information on the history of the types and the studbook evaluation - very separated from the other breed characteristic information. There are a few sentences of duplication here and there in these sections, but that can be dealt with after we get the layout how we want it. Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that however it all sorts out, the idea of having the characteristics common to all sections (color, etc.) first is a good one.  This may include studbook selection if relevant to discuss all the general criteria.   The mess with studbook selection now is that the working tests are, I think, only applicable for the draft horse section (am I correct on that, Pitke?).  It would be good to know any unique criteria for the others.  That way, perhaps there could be a general overview of studbook selection, then a sentence or two in each section about the unique tests for each...if they exist?  Montanabw(talk) 17:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Each of the current breed section parts have short descriptions about what is expected from a horse to be registered in the respective studbook section. These could be cut and merged into a list under the proposed Studbook evaluation subsection. However, the Trotter section would become VERY short. Montanabw is correct that the working test only applies to the working section; however, trotters go through the drivability test, and ponies go through either a ridability or a drivability test. I have now an idea, and will be editing shortly. Pitke (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I look forward to seeing your idea. My main issue with how its presented now is how much it jumps around. There's general breed characteristics, then we jump to the studbook evaluation, then over to breed types for the draft type, then back to the studbook evaluation, then back to breed type/history for the other three types, then back to general breed characteristics in the form of color. It just gets to feeling a little chaotic. Anyway, I look forward to seeing what you do with it. Dana boomer (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Initial action carried out. Please have a look, do we have too much or is something lacking? And do the images still look any good? My screen is TINY now. Earlier it was HUGE. I cannot imagine how the layout looks with a normal screen.Pitke (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll make some little picky tweaks, I too am not the best person to get the overall layout at this point and shall defer to others on that point. Montanabw(talk) 21:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks quite good! I'm going to start going through now (probably just a little at a time) and making tweaks and trims. I'll try to do them in little bits so that it will be easy to revert anything that you don't like! Please feel free to revert anything that you feel changes the meaning or removes too much detail. I'll leave queries here on the talk page for anything I feel is questionable. Dana boomer (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of top half of article 

message: ; General
* All percent signs (%) should be written out (percent), per WP:MOS.
:* Pitke (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *I know, someone shoehorning the "citation" form in! *paranoid* Pitke (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pitke (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: *, down 2.5 K Pitke (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: *Most of the time with these instances it's because I've been rewriting and rearranging stuff without the original sources at hand, and because I've done some compound sentences from multiple sources. There really should be at least five places where the info just was that scattered and that had to be done to make it even a bit smoothly readable. Pitke (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: * Source won't say. I've said this before, it was probably in the 1980s or early 1990s. Pitke (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: *This is the section where I have most needed to combine sources to get good senetences. Cannot remember everything of course, but I dare claim most of these are legit. Pitke (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: *Consisted of compunds, simmered down, no way of knowing which ones held the crucial info. Pitke (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: * Pitke (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: * Pitke (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: *  Pitke (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Before I tell you Finns would kill me and send me piece by piece to you by sea mail if we did this, please elaborate what order and structure you would suggest. Pitke (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that the draft horse uses info in the uses section could be kept in its entirety but moved up to the characteristics section on the draft type; and the same for the others.  Not deleting any of it, just putting it all together in the same place so the reader has "one stop shopping" for everything they ever wanted to know about a given section.   In other words something akin to:
*Characteristics section
**All the general stuff
**Draft section
***Characteristics unique to Draft type
***Uses of draft type
**Trotter section
***Unique characteristics
***Uses of Trotter type
and so on...  Does this make sense now?  Montanabw(talk) 02:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I get what you mean, it's what I thought too. I, knowing how this breed is used, must say that I don't think is a good idea. The breed is multi-purpose. It's highly multi-purpose even on the level of individuals. T section studbook horses are likely to be used as work horses, but also to serve as a family steed, and some individuals are given a chance at racing too. T-lined horses have only that much chance of getting a home where they will be used for work, so they end up being trotters or steeds. As for J section, a great many riding horses were originally either unpromising, family-wise undesired, or unperforming young trotters. The most famous example of an ex-trotter steed (or a J-lined one) is a hobby level pet pony, but there are also trotting champions with riding success after their racing career. Riding section actually haves a pretty clean-cut scope, but only when there is no harness within a 3 mile radius ;) Pony-sized -- is there anything they can't do?! Is there anything they aren't used for?! What would be their "section intended use"? Pitke (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah!  I see!  The PERFECT horse!  (smile)  OK, you win!  Just be careful that the "uses" section isn't redundant to the breed characteristics section.  May be worth expanding on the above versatility of individual horses in there somewhere (seeing as you already found the source).  The structure of the uses section kind of bugs me, I think if it can get another round of careful review for redundancy once the assorted cleanup is done, I'll go away happy enough.  Montanabw(talk) 18:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just one double registered stallion... Hardly a source for what I claimed above. But if I were to find some nice sources for this type of addition, where should I put it? General characteristics? Pitke (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

text: My thinking is that military use is quite tied up with use in general and hard to separate out.  I DO see that a Horses in the Finnish military article could dovetail well with some of our other specialty articles such as Horses in the Napoleonic Wars, so it wouldn't be content forking to create a new article, but I am not sure we have to tease out the threads.  With all the cleanup that's happened to date, perhaps the length is now under control??  Montanabw(talk) 02:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even with all of the removals that have happened to date, the length is still at just over 10,400 words. WP:SIZE considers 6,000 to be getting long, with a maximum recommended length of 10,000 words. When you consider that Thoroughbred is at 5,300, Andalusian horse is at 4,500, Arabian horse is at 8,600 and even Horse itself is only at 7,500, this would be probably the longest breed articles we have, and it's not about a major global breed. The breed characteristics, individual sections, and uses sections are better for the trim that they've had in the past week or so, and will look even nicer after the remaining small trims that I've mentioned above. The history section is still very bulky though - and I still don't think that a "History of the Finnhorse" article is the right way to go. There is no precedent for this in any breed (horse, dog, cat, anything) that I know of, and I don't think that setting the precedent with a relatively minor breed is the way to go - especially when there is information that can be trimmed out into articles for which there is precedent. Information like how the breed was trained for cavalry work is really just ancillary details - there is nothing special about how this breed was trained for cavalry work over any other breed, and so it's not really something that (IMO) needs to be detailed in this article. Most of the Military use in World War II section is this way as well - it has details on horse to troop ratios, Russian indemnities, and military reserve practices that are interesting and perfectly suited to a military article, but are really just TMI for a general breed article. Dana boomer (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea, will do this. Pitke (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I guess I'm coming around to that as well.  But for a spinoff, let's keep title conventions consistent with the "Horses in ____________ war/military/army" format.  I definitely agree that a "history of breed" separate article is not a good idea as it could create a precedent for a bunch of stubs in other breed articles.  What is unique about the Finnhorse is how it is sort of THE horse of the nation, which is unusual.  Yeah, I say take the other sandboxes live and then spin off the military stuff.  Montanabw(talk) 18:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Yup, saw that and it looks good. Title of the article should probably end up being "Horses in the Finnish military", but other than that it looks good. I'm going to wait for Finetooth to finish going through (he's an awesome copyeditor, and will most likely be leaving comments at the peer review), and then plan to go through and see what other things I can find to complain about :) Size is looking good - any other cutting we find to do will just be icing on the cake. Dana boomer (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queries 

message: I'm wondering if we can kill the "uses" section altogether and merge that material with the four breed sections.  It's not standard for WP Horse Breeds, but in this case, due to the four studbook sections,  it kind of makes sense.  Montanabw(talk) 19:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I tell you Finns would kill me and send me piece by piece to you by sea mail if we did this, please elaborate what order and structure you would suggest. Pitke (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that the draft horse uses info in the uses section could be kept in its entirety but moved up to the characteristics section on the draft type; and the same for the others.  Not deleting any of it, just putting it all together in the same place so the reader has "one stop shopping" for everything they ever wanted to know about a given section.   In other words something akin to:
*Characteristics section
**All the general stuff
**Draft section
***Characteristics unique to Draft type
***Uses of draft type
**Trotter section
***Unique characteristics
***Uses of Trotter type
and so on...  Does this make sense now?  Montanabw(talk) 02:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I get what you mean, it's what I thought too. I, knowing how this breed is used, must say that I don't think is a good idea. The breed is multi-purpose. It's highly multi-purpose even on the level of individuals. T section studbook horses are likely to be used as work horses, but also to serve as a family steed, and some individuals are given a chance at racing too. T-lined horses have only that much chance of getting a home where they will be used for work, so they end up being trotters or steeds. As for J section, a great many riding horses were originally either unpromising, family-wise undesired, or unperforming young trotters. The most famous example of an ex-trotter steed (or a J-lined one) is a hobby level pet pony, but there are also trotting champions with riding success after their racing career. Riding section actually haves a pretty clean-cut scope, but only when there is no harness within a 3 mile radius ;) Pony-sized -- is there anything they can't do?! Is there anything they aren't used for?! What would be their "section intended use"? Pitke (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah!  I see!  The PERFECT horse!  (smile)  OK, you win!  Just be careful that the "uses" section isn't redundant to the breed characteristics section.  May be worth expanding on the above versatility of individual horses in there somewhere (seeing as you already found the source).  The structure of the uses section kind of bugs me, I think if it can get another round of careful review for redundancy once the assorted cleanup is done, I'll go away happy enough.  Montanabw(talk) 18:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just one double registered stallion... Hardly a source for what I claimed above. But if I were to find some nice sources for this type of addition, where should I put it? General characteristics? Pitke (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Structural thoughts

message: First, I think that the Crown stallion system and harness racing articles are probably ready to be moved to the mainspace, and should be moved so that those links go blue and it doesn't look like the information was just deleted. Second, as I was poking around in the history section, I thought of another idea for a new article that would remove some of the tangential information without needing a seperate history of the finnhorse article. 
Here's my thought: There is a lot of information in the history section on how the Finnish people used horses in the military. While interesting, much of this information is not exactly necessary to an complete understanding of the Finnhorse breed. I think that, as with the two other new articles, much of the tangential information could be moved to a new article, titled something like Military use of horses in Finland, with a summary left behind. 
This tangential information is scattered all through the history section, although obviously it is concentrated in those subsections directly relating to military use. For example, take this paragraph from the Military use section:
Before World War II, the Finnhorse was the breed that made up almost all of the horses that were part of the Finnish army and mounted police forces. While officers mostly rode warmbloods, for the cavalry, the so-called "light type" of Finnhorse was used. The horses were bought directly from farmers, and given basic training for about six months before transferring to regiments for further training. This second part of the training took another six months, directed by non-commissioned officers. At this point the horses were considered trained for normal cavalry purposes. The most talented horses were usually assigned to younger officers or the best riders among non-commissioned ranks, and many horses had competitive success during their service.[66] After the war, the Finnish cavalry was converted to infantry, and the use of the Finnhorse for riding purposes nearly ended. However, the breed made a comeback as a riding horse, even returning to competitive ranks, beginning in the late 1960s.[35]
Now, the bolded part, while interesting, is not really necessary for a full understanding of the Finnhorse breed. It is, however, very on-point for an understanding of how horses were used by the military in Finland. There is quite a bit of other information like this, especially where the text goes into describing horse transactions between Finland, Russia and other Scandanavian countries during and immediately after wars. Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My thinking is that military use is quite tied up with use in general and hard to separate out.  I DO see that a Horses in the Finnish military article could dovetail well with some of our other specialty articles such as Horses in the Napoleonic Wars, so it wouldn't be content forking to create a new article, but I am not sure we have to tease out the threads.  With all the cleanup that's happened to date, perhaps the length is now under control??  Montanabw(talk) 02:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even with all of the removals that have happened to date, the length is still at just over 10,400 words. WP:SIZE considers 6,000 to be getting long, with a maximum recommended length of 10,000 words. When you consider that Thoroughbred is at 5,300, Andalusian horse is at 4,500, Arabian horse is at 8,600 and even Horse itself is only at 7,500, this would be probably the longest breed articles we have, and it's not about a major global breed. The breed characteristics, individual sections, and uses sections are better for the trim that they've had in the past week or so, and will look even nicer after the remaining small trims that I've mentioned above. The history section is still very bulky though - and I still don't think that a "History of the Finnhorse" article is the right way to go. There is no precedent for this in any breed (horse, dog, cat, anything) that I know of, and I don't think that setting the precedent with a relatively minor breed is the way to go - especially when there is information that can be trimmed out into articles for which there is precedent. Information like how the breed was trained for cavalry work is really just ancillary details - there is nothing special about how this breed was trained for cavalry work over any other breed, and so it's not really something that (IMO) needs to be detailed in this article. Most of the Military use in World War II section is this way as well - it has details on horse to troop ratios, Russian indemnities, and military reserve practices that are interesting and perfectly suited to a military article, but are really just TMI for a general breed article. Dana boomer (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea, will do this. Pitke (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I guess I'm coming around to that as well.  But for a spinoff, let's keep title conventions consistent with the "Horses in ____________ war/military/army" format.  I definitely agree that a "history of breed" separate article is not a good idea as it could create a precedent for a bunch of stubs in other breed articles.  What is unique about the Finnhorse is how it is sort of THE horse of the nation, which is unusual.  Yeah, I say take the other sandboxes live and then spin off the military stuff.  Montanabw(talk) 18:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Yup, saw that and it looks good. Title of the article should probably end up being "Horses in the Finnish military", but other than that it looks good. I'm going to wait for Finetooth to finish going through (he's an awesome copyeditor, and will most likely be leaving comments at the peer review), and then plan to go through and see what other things I can find to complain about :) Size is looking good - any other cutting we find to do will just be icing on the cake. Dana boomer (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Another possible new article

message: * ossifying of the hoof cartilage -- the source literally says this -- the cartilage of the hoof turns to bone or gains bone-like structure/qualities. No idea what the term of art would be in English. Pitke (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure there is a proper medical term for it, but what it is escapes me at the moment.  I guess just link ossification if there's an article that describes the condition generally.  Montanabw(talk) 06:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This study says "ossification of the hoof cartilage". Pitke (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That helps.  I wish they'd do better than things like "collateral cartilage ossification of the distal phalanx"  :-P  Incidentally, you may want to look at this article (Even I can barely read the abstract, such is the scientific-ese in which it is written, but nonetheless...)  Equine Vet J. 2004 Mar;36(2):143-8.  "Clinical significance of ossification of the cartilages of the front feet based on nuclear bone scintigraphy, radiography and lameness examinations in 21 Finnhorses."  Ruohoniemi M, Mäkelä O, Eskonen T.  Montanabw(talk) 03:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so throw a scientific journal at me and wave a possible hereditary condition in my face and it's all it takes!  (my bad)  expanded upon and clarified the ossification thing with peer-reviewed journal sources.  It's my thing (the horse illustrating cerebellar abiotrophy is one of mine). Tried to keep it short and use sources saying that it appears to be heritable, but also found a source that one could read to hint that a low-heel/long toe structure (a shoeing style desired in harness racing?) might also be linked. Montanabw(talk) 04:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: So what happened between 1954-1965???  Or is either 1954 or 1965 a typo??  Montanabw(talk) 23:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: OK.  All I know is that I have run into some real pain in the butt reviewers.  There are people out there who will in fact request a source for air being breathable, actually! ;-P  Montanabw(talk) 23:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random notes to keep discussion in the talk page 

message: OK, been away long enough to have less-foggy eyes.  I did a run-through of the whole thing with my usual gentle search-and-destroy approach.  ;-)  I did a bit of wordsmithing, word-chopping, and wreaked general mayhem, but in particular, I spotted some stuff that was redundant or confusing.  I moved around a little bit of it (notably moving the short summaries of the studbook evaluation for each section into breed characteristics, thus making them clearer plus killing some redundancies), fixed some inconsistencies, clarified some concepts, but some areas I just flagged with hidden text that you can toss when read.  I'd move any hidden text discussion over here if discussion is needed.   I also got a better sense of what can easily be chopped wholesale for a military article versus what's going to have to be more surgically excised, and noted the easy stuff.  Overall, I think that chopping some of the general military stuff and maybe a bit of polish on the history section once that's done (making it possibly a bit more chronological and less topical, it skips around a bit, which results in some redundancy) and you'll be just about there. You have a few "notes to self" on citation that may need to be cleaned out, and there are two "citation needed" tags in the same paragraph, over a year old now, best to sort that out.  Overall, getting there, definitely getting there! Montanabw(talk) 06:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Blast from MontanaBW

message: Found this just a minute ago: . Quoth pages 46-47, "Leena Jaakkola from Oulu brought two bronze medals [team and personal] home from the Scandinavian disabled [dressage] championships (...). As she did it, she also created history: this was the first time a Finnhorse achieved a medal or even placed in an international event. It's no wonder that the spectators and other competitors wouldn't recognise the breed that's barely ever seen competing outside [Finland's] borders. Most people guessed that the light-built, 12-year-old Valssandra was a Haflinger." The rider has MS and due to her back pain she cannot ride warmbloods. Thus the use of her "B" horse. "Every now and then I feel like driving a moped to a motorbike event. Judges criticise the unflashy, low movements (...) but that's precisely the reason I am able to ride her. I just need to gather the points for other virtues (...)" Pitke (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice! Definitely good to add something to the riding horse section that they have been successful at the international level. Note, though, that Google web caches are very unstable and the link will not be acceptable for FAC (and will also probably go dead before you can even get a review at GAN). Dana boomer (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed the link. Pitke (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Another catch, though probably not article material unless someone gets clever  page 35: "A few years ago [Ypäjä equestrian academy] had a visiting teacher for riding, eventing world championship medalist Anne-Marie Taylor from England. She frankly said that 90 % of English hobby level riders would be better off with a Finnhorse than a Thoroughbred. (...) her argument was that most riders of that level are not skilled enough to ride a TB. When they still attempt it, the situation hurts both the rider and the image of the sport." Pitke (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I also like the first bit about the paraequestrian competition, and I think you can sneak it into uses somewhere, but think discretion is advised on the second.  Implied criticism of other breeds best avoided. If she's just said Finnhorses were the sweetest little horses in the world, you could have used it!  LOL! Montanabw(talk) 23:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The breed name can be filed off, but aren't TBs generally cnnsidered horses for the advanced rider? Being the reason why she feels these riders pump their ego with them? "(...) better off with Finnhorses, which she feels would be a safer opton for the riders than insisting to use fashionable hotblood breeds." ?  Pitke (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh!  Don't EVER say that to breeders of the hotblood breeds!  LOL!  The very concept that such horses are too "hot" for beginners is anathema!  -- and bad for business (full disclosure:  I teach riding lessons on Arabians.)  That said, hotbloods don't tolerate ineptitude or abuse, which is a point. (Hotblood horses sort of are like Border Collie dogs -- very smart, don't do well around people who don't take the time to understand them)  So Taylor is right that most hobbyists who don't really bother to learn proper technique would be better off on a horse that is more laid back -- I do pity ANY horse who has to put up with an ignorant idiot! Clearly the cooler-dispositioned animals will put up with more nonsense from the unsupervised rider.  However, hotbloods can be used to instruct beginners if properly trained, so can't really make a blanket statement.  Montanabw(talk) 21:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

text: The other thing that personally drives me crazy is the obsession with big horses. This is one reason I've so enjoyed working on the Finnhorse article (and I also worked some on the Halfinger article).  I truly enjoy smaller horses!   I have seen too many people get the trendy big warmblood that's 17 hands and not only is the little middle-aged beginner rider unable to mount without assistance, those huge gaits are tough to ride and even if they have a good disposition, the horses are just plain intimidating.  TBs have the same problem-- people think they need to buy some huge thing that scares them.  Why on god's green earth anyone thinks they "need" a riding horse over about 15.2 is beyond me.  I guess we just have to blame Henry VIII.   Montanabw(talk) 21:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article grows obsolete as we copyedit it! 

message: Just a reminder to contributors: Finnish horse system works differently. I'll cover it with more detail here, because I can, and as a reminder for myself as well. For starters, we have Hippos (the breed registry), then we have Hippos (the stud book registry), and yeah, a bunch of breed associations (which basically just promote their breeds).
The registry is a national all-animals horse registry with practically no requitements, maintained by Suomen Hippos, the national, official central association of all things horsey in Finland. Every single equine creature, whether imported or bred here, must be registered. This is enforced by the EU.
Requirements:
*Certain things are not allowed in a horse's name. Basic stuff.
*If the horse is to compete, its sire must have been accepted for breeding (= be in a studbook), and the horse must be registered before the April of its yearling year.
:*"Home breeding exception": exceptions for the sire rule are foals by and out of individuals that have been in the legal possession of a single legal person from the date of the service to the date of the foaling.
Being registered as being of a certain breed simply means there is proof the horse is that breed -- normally the parents being of the breed is qualification enough, and exceptions include mainly warmblood breeds, which can be tricky to sort out. The parents do not need to be registered in the breed's studbook however, just being registered is enough.
The studbook is where things get specific. Studbook registration is a permit to be used in breeding, controlled by Suomen Hippos or the breed association in cooperation with Suomen Hippos. Generally, to be accepted, a stallion must have both parents in the studbook, but for a mare just the sire is enough.
-- Pitke (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus: "registered" = "not a secret hidden bush pony the EU knows nothing about". Pitke (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You definitely need to explain this, because in the USA a breed registry and the stud book are all the same thing and usually are also the breed promotion association.  And in the USA we have tons and tons of unregistered animals because god forbid the guvmint tell us rednecks what to do with our inbred backyard canners!  We're a free country, ya know, and only dem terrorists types would move a sick animal somewhere that would make other animals sick!  ;-)  .  (Read the NAIS article for enlightenment on American thinking...).  However, I'll let you do the explaining bit.  But it's gotta happen.  Montanabw(talk) 18:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: registered :P Pitke (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in Finnish at the moment!  Montanabw(talk) 21:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder -- registered versus registered in stud book 

message: User Finetooth has been of great help and made a list of MOS breaches within this article. I've Ctrl+H-ed most of them into oblivion, though with some points I need your help, fellow editors.
*Issue 1: layout. The Uses section has the tiny Combined driving section. Combine into "Other" [uses] section together with the passage about therapeutic riding? Also, I'm editing on a mini lappy or even better, a cell phone, so I need the help of fellow editors with more normal screens to adjust the images so that they don't make the layout ugly. As per the recent changes in the article's overall structure, some images might need to go or be moved. Pitke (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll play with the uses section.  I'm actually OK with the bulleted section for the four breed sections too.  It isn't a huge deal and I think makes it all more understandable. Dana, can you fiddle with the images and check formatting?  You've run the GA gauntlet more than I have for that stuff... ? Pretty please??  Montanabw(talk) 19:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've played with images a bit. I think the number is still fine - they're not crowding each other. The main thing to remember is that the image coding is supposed to go within the section that the images are located in when you're viewing the actual article. So, the coding should be just after the header, not just before it. And, images are supposed to look into the text whenever possible. I think I caught all of the instances of these two things, but it's just something to keep in mind. I think that once the three new articles are actually in the mainspace (so that it doesn't look like the information was just tossed and so that reviewers have something to click on if they want to), this could probably go up for GA. I still want to go through the history section, but can do that while it's on the list, since getting a review usually takes a while. And if you get a review before I get through my nitpicking, it won't be a big deal - Finetooth is right that it's ready for GA, and most of my stuff is just FAC-type picking. Dana boomer (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So what's keeping from being a FAC, other than the fact that it's been recently through some not-that-small changes? I wanna know o.o Pitke (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because FAC is quite a bit more difficult than GAN - multiple people looking at every nook and cranny of the article, deliberately trying to find mistakes - image copyright, reference formatting, commas in the right places, comprehensiveness versus the "broadness" criteria for GAN. I wouldn't recommend a straight jump to FAC for a beginner (actually, I wouldn't even recommend it for myself, and I've taken more than half a dozen articles through FAC) :) GAN is a good place to get another "outside" (non-horsey) review, and it will give us a bit more time to comb through the article to find the mistakes ourselves. Before you go to FAC, we should also have a copyright expert look over all of the images and a copyeditor dig into the article for work on prose. Believe me - GAN is MUCH easier, and is good for getting any remaining kinks out of the article before going to FAC. Dana boomer (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. My line of thought is that if it's a review, then it should be nitpickiest one so that I don't have to fix it twice, once for GAN and once for FAC. As a Finn, I'm not worried about such jumps, but I'll take your word for this. Pitke (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Dana.  Let's get the GA tag.  Sometimes that's tough enough.  Should you doubt the challenges of getting a long, complex article to FA, just check out Appaloosa and the related discussion on Dana's talk page! It's already a GA for a couple years, and now we have been tweaking on for over a month and still have one more problem (mine to fix!) before we want to even submit it to FA.  Even then, with the careful guidance of both Dana and Ealdgyth, who are the GA and FA pros of WPEQ, I'm dreading the gauntlet.  If Finnhorse goes through GA with relatively few problems, trust me that on an article of this length and complexity, that's a real feather in your cap!  Montanabw(talk) 23:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests from Finetooth 

message: Apparently Montanabw thinks I'm making a mess of the refs ("Please STOP changing these refs, take the issue to talk. This is screwing things up!."). Looking at this diff, it seems to me that consistency is improved. I don't understand why these edits should be reverted.  —Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 01:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For the most part I think the latest changes you made to the references are good. However, I think what Montana might be seeing is that in some of your changes you moved information (notes) from within ref tags to outside of ref tags. Although these should probably be in a separate notes section, rather than mixed in with the references, they also are ancillary information that doesn't need to be in the body of the article. Also, you changed a few refs to the harvnb format - something that you did more of earlier, and I reverted. This format is one that not all editors like (I know I personally don't use it), and so is a change that needs to be discussed first. The consistent formatting to using all templated citations is something that needed to be done, so it might be that if you re-do your changes without moving any information outside of ref tags, Montana would be happier with it! Also, I'm not understanding the fact tags - AFAIK the information is covered by the next ref in the paragraph, and it doesn't really seem to be any controversial information, although this just might be my opinion as a "horsey" editor. Dana boomer (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The other issue is that there is some VERY complex referencing going on here due to the fact that nearly all sources for this article are in Finnish and there are NO English equivalents.  Thus, there are translations of certain segments and the original Finnish text included to explain.  It's kind of a unique situation.  Further, the lead editor on this article, Pitke, should be the person to fix the refs, because that's who put them in originally.  Pitke sort of works here in intense bursts followed by long absences, but will be back eventually (or maybe a note can be left at commons, Pitke hangs out there more than here).  So my suggestion is that instead of just going in and making wholesale changes, I think it makes a LOT more sense to just explain WHAT you think should be done and WHY. Then we can figure out if we can make the simpler changes without Pitke's input (like templating citations so they all are the same format, maybe, if we're careful)  and save the heavy lifting for when the person with the most expertise on the content and the reasons for the sourcing style returns.   Montanabw(talk) 03:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

text: However, it is common practice to not change the ref formatting without consulting the main editors of the article (and I'm pretty sure that's written into one of the sourcing guidelines, but don't feel like looking for it right now). You changed the ref formatting with your addition of the harvnb refs. You also removed several urls or parts of urls and added some confusing fact tags. However, Chris, I agree with you that if some of the refs are going to use templates, they all should, and anyone can do this, not just Pitke, and so if you want to, you should go ahead and do it. Just please, don't move information out of refs and into the body of the article (or if anything, move them into separate notes templates), don't use harvnb formatting without first getting consensus on the talk page, and don't remove information altogether. Dana boomer (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I'm snappish about this, but it's not ownership to ask that you don't make other editors do hours of painstaking work comparing diffs to see what you've messed up and what you haven't.   I'm really quite tired of people who make half-done edits screaming WP:OWN whenever they get called on a poor quality edit, against consensus, on an article where they've never done any work before.  So bless you Chris, what IS your point?  Do you want this article to be all harvb refs?  Then you need consensus, which I doubt you are going to get where we have 119 refs.  Do you want us to use citation templates for all refs?  Well, getting there, the trick is finding the right template to allow the notes and Finnish translations to appear properly.  We have some unusual needs for this article due to the dearth of research material in English and at present, only one editor fluent in Finnish to make sure nothing got messed up.  When and if this article goes to GA, we will need this cleanup to be done, but in the meantime, is there a crisis of some sort that we need to be aware of?  Montanabw(talk) 23:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean about "painstaking work comparing diffs". I linked the diff in question at the beginning of this section. You'll notice there aren't any harvnb changes. Dana boomer reverted those changes, and I didn't try adding them back. First thing changed is ref "national horse". The unneeded parts of the URL like session id are stripped, the publisher is added and I slightly adjusted the quote formatting. Next is ref "Ertola&Houttu2003". I switched from cite journal to cite book, adjusted author formatting, added editor names, removed a broken link, added page numbers and added ISBN. It doesn't seem so hard to review, and I'm having a hard time seeing how this is so damaging to your precious article. Unreferenced comments (synthesis?) like "This claim is also unverified by modern studies, though the modern Konik horse has such an appearance." appear as footnotes that would lead the casual reader perusing the article body to think it was actually a footnote supporting the statements about Rislakki instead of some contradicting comment. I don't see how moving that one sentence to the main part of the text and adding a fact tag is damaging to the article. It seems to be an improvement. There were a few refs I combined by reusing the ref name and a few upper case citation template parameters made lower case. Is this really a "half-done edit"? It's not so hard in the history to select my first and last edits and get a diff for all of them.  —Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 02:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned, Chris' changes are valid. I'll check the diffs later (again working on my celly Werther, trying to get a pre-paid wireless for my lappy today/tomorrow) but switching ref templates is no biggie as long as no content is lost. I'm also completely fine with moving the Tarpan thing to the body of the article. The information in question is relevant and without a source to coverit would probably been picked at during GAN or at least FAC process. The most recent major changes in this article's history HAS been a huge pruning effort to make its size somehow bearable. We're much aware it's still a whale, but IMO the Tarpan change is actually very good and wholly worth its weight. Unless we create a refgroup for non-citation notes, the note after "Rislakki said it descended from Tarpans" would look like " here's where he said so" instead of "actually this claim was hoo hah". No reader can be expected which of the 100+ footnotes are clarifications and which support statements if we don't use properly named refgroups for comments. As a friendly suggestion to you Chris: using the edit summary to explain your actions even if it felt redundant at times will probably help to appease us paranoid ole sillies. I imagine we're still a bit shell-shocked from all those months when I was pouring in huge amounts of stuff and Monty had to check everything I did for my English (and stop to say Now Really?!? at all them weirdo specialties in Finnish horsey culture), and I had to check everything they did to make sure the facts weren't damaged. Pitke (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, forgot. Cutting dead links and redundant link coding is standard procedure, although I'd like to revive them as far as possible. All links were viable just a few months ago when I ran the GAN automated link checker. Pitke (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

text: not real sure if we're talking about the same thing. There were already some citations with |ref=harv. Adding a few more isn't ruining anything and it isn't the same as replacing a citation with harvnb. Besides, I don't even see how that can be considered screwing things up. There are a bunch of refs basically formatted like harvnb except for without the automatic link to the reference. I don't see how a link is so bad. but harvnb is a discussion for another section because there were no harvnb insertions in the diff we're all talking about. And this is very much within WP:OWN. Did you read the examples? Not having time to review is specifically listed as an invalid reason for reverting.  —Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 02:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm pretty sure this is one of the refs that wasn't added by me. It's in English and I don't remember reading it. Pitke (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say it rings a bell with me, but I'll check as I am the most likely culprit.  However, if I added it, it would be in Google Books because I don't own it...  Montanabw(talk) 20:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

text: IIRC, the article itself was missing author information. The magazine started in 2009, so it'd be the 1st volume right? Pitke (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: could be vol 1 or it could be a magazine that uses years instead of volume numbers or some other system.  —Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 18:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Many periodicals do not have volume numbers, many popular magazines just index by month and year.  If all it says is (for example) "January 2011" or something, don't make it up.  And Chris, it isn't WP:OWN to revert repeated attempts by a "drive-by" editor who screwed up bad the first time and failed to discuss the next time.  You screwed up once, you were reverted and when you showed up again, made what looked like similar changes, having shown no respect for WP:BRD, your reputation with me personally was toast, though not irrevocably so.  You will redeem yourself in my eyes by what you are doing now, which is to work collaboratively with the lead editor of the article Montanabw(talk) 22:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked. The magazine only gives month and year. No volume numbers there. Pitke (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref formatting 

message: I've been going through and tweaking refs to hopefully make everybody happy. I've come across a few issues that I think Pitke might be the only one who can fix:
* Ertola book (ref name Ertola&Houttu2003). The page= field is giving the number of pages in the book. Instead, this should give the page from which the information was drawn.
::*I'm pretty sure this is one of the refs that wasn't added by me. It's in English and I don't remember reading it. Pitke (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say it rings a bell with me, but I'll check as I am the most likely culprit.  However, if I added it, it would be in Google Books because I don't own it...  Montanabw(talk) 20:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, the article itself was missing author information. The magazine started in 2009, so it'd be the 1st volume right? Pitke (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: could be vol 1 or it could be a magazine that uses years instead of volume numbers or some other system.  —Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 18:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Many periodicals do not have volume numbers, many popular magazines just index by month and year.  If all it says is (for example) "January 2011" or something, don't make it up.  And Chris, it isn't WP:OWN to revert repeated attempts by a "drive-by" editor who screwed up bad the first time and failed to discuss the next time.  You screwed up once, you were reverted and when you showed up again, made what looked like similar changes, having shown no respect for WP:BRD, your reputation with me personally was toast, though not irrevocably so.  You will redeem yourself in my eyes by what you are doing now, which is to work collaboratively with the lead editor of the article Montanabw(talk) 22:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked. The magazine only gives month and year. No volume numbers there. Pitke (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref comments

message: "The official Finnish coldblood record as of 2010 is 1:19,9aly, "
I can't c/e this bit without understanding what it meant! 85.210.52.109 (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Pitke/Suokkilyhenteet should give you some idea in case the part you don't get is the time. The rest of the sentence refers to the official (=recognised by the national (Hippos) bylaws), Finnish, trotter, speed record, for coldblood horses, as of 2010. Pitke (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've kind of been gently bothered by this too.  Pitke has explained it to me and I still didn't get it.   The sandboxed article helps, may want to take it live and add a wiklink to it. We may have to say "1:19.9" over x distance by an auto start..."  But I'm in no rush to fuss with it.  Montanabw(talk) 16:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Car start??  Pitke??  help! Montanabw(talk) 17:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As per my userpage non-article, a = car start (=with mobile starting gate); ly = lyhyt, i.e. "short", i.e. short distance heat. Pitke (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe just put a short explanation into the article, and get your "non-article" live! ;-)  The Finnish abbreviations are clearly creating a mental block for us hardcore English speakers Montanabw(talk) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not before it has a proper name. Abbreivations one might happen upon while reading Wikipedia article on Finnhorse isn't too catchy. Pitke (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Or a proper scope, for that matter. It's a laundry list or trivia as is. Pitke (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we definitely need at least a short explanation in this article for all of us n00bs, and maybe you could pop a summary into the Harness racing in Finland article?  Montanabw(talk) 23:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: To help with keeping the ref note thing manageable and consistent, I've moved the definitions of the ref notes into the Ref section. For future reference, all refs should be given a name and defined there at the correct alphabetical slot. All refs should use the relevant citation template. Pitke (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That works.  Someone did that for me on the Sheila Varian article.  I have found it a little complicated to edit later, as you have to go find the link in the bottom and then scroll around to find the right spot for the ref etc., but that's probably because I do most of my editing on a laptop with a little screen and I hate scrolling.   But it does have an elegance to it of putting everything in one spot.  Montanabw(talk) 21:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I do all of my editing these days on a tiny laptop. I forgot to advertise, but this way has the additional virtue of keeping long unwieldy ref texts away from the main code and makes keeping on track with the prose easier. One full-length cite journal/web with quote and translation takes about one fourth of the screen for me. Pitke (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree with that.  The refs do clutter the editing page. Mixed blessing, I guess.  If your laptop is tiny, you just proved that you are younger than moi! (LOL)  Montanabw(talk) 16:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ...so you've been thinking it possible I could be older than you then?! Pitke (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, but I tend to respect wiki-anonymity. (grin) Why I have the Jimbo quote on my main page.  Best admin I know on wiki I communicate with IRL and happens to be under the age of 25. Second-best (and arguably, best, just with a very different style), also IRL communicaiton, is over 50. Montanabw(talk) 19:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: I finished translation to Finnish today, and as I'm typing this, fellow editors there are doing clean-up. I've added it to peer review now, and announced my intention to FAC it.
Swedish version has been updated with material from this article, although there have been some misunderstandings and mistranslations. The ref notes have been discarded. I plan on restoring the refs a little by little, and maybe, once the fi FAC is rolling nicely, try my hand at this version.
French version has been marked with a "please translate from en to fr" tag (by Tsaag?). I've actually managed to talk an acquaintance into translating some parts of the article. She's fluent in French, although needs some refreshing, and lacks horsey vocabulary. We'll be working together to keep the facts as straight as possible. Pitke (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Finnish peer review remarked that the section on Early history contains too much info on discredited theories, that have little to do in an encyclopaedic article, and would be better suited in a scientific research report. In my opinion, the section is also unwieldy, and easily the longest and heaviest subsection of the entire article. This diff should give a general idea of what was done there; the "before" part is a faithful translation of the current English version. Any comments before I bring my knife here? Pitke (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely tap Tsaag for help with the French version, I believe Tsaag is sort of the guru of Fr.wiki horse articles. Montanabw(talk) 23:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation follow-up 

message: The pre-FAC peer review of the Finnish translated version has gathered some attention, and a few users have questioned the reliability of the Early History section. For most part, I agree with these users, thus the removal of some sourced content and considerable rewording/rewriting of a few passages. The sources used for these claims about prehistoric instances of horses in Finnish area are horsey books, not archeological ones. 
It would be helpful if someone could point me towards a good, recent journal or article on early horses in Northern Europe. Pitke (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I wasn't sure if it was an IP that actually knew what they were doing or just vandalism. Nonetheless, they were changing sourced information without new sources, which is a no-no. I know that Pesky and Kim (User:KimVanderlind maybe? You can find her in the discussion of ancient horse history on the Horse talk page) have done quite a bit of research on the ancient history of the horse in Europe, although Pesky's focused mainly on Britain, I think. If you agree with the removal of some information, then please feel free to undo my reversion - however, the changing of sourced material without changing the sources is not good, and will get you hit at FAC if someone comes across the change in the history or has access to the source you cite and actually checks it to make sure it backs up the claims. Dana boomer (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. This change was rewording into a form the sources later actually do support (the article doesn't even mention Neolithic Europe anywhere else), and this was changing the summary of the History section to reflect the earlier changes that made things more in accordance to the source. That particluar source is online, even, so it can be checked. Pitke (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to toss a redlinked and overlinked bit, but if there is a real article out there in en.wiki, just redo the link. The main thing is reliable sources.  If the horsey books are all there is, then rather than toss probably reliable material, better to just "teach the controversy" and explain it as a theory amongst Finnhorse fans.  I agree that Kim will be the goddess of what can be scientifically verified and what is still speculation.  See also domestication of the horse for sources to swipe. Montanabw(talk) 23:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Monty dear, please be careful when killing red links! This was a bad move, we're talking about the difference between Stone Age and Iron Age here. I specifically mentioned in here that Neolithic is not truthful. No source for the article whatsoever supports anything to do with Neolithic. All we have are the iron age bits etc, the Neolithic thing is an ancient left-over from the earliest version on fi Wikipedia I've based the growth of this article on. On other news, I'm positive User:193.111.93.44 is a user on fi-wiki that is taking part in the Peer Review, and is replying to my messages on fi-wiki. Their editing style is abrupt and their lack of edit summaries is most likely because of lack of confidence in use of English. I've contacted them, asking to elaborate on summaries, and offering help. Pitke (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair, but redlinks are wisest handled by at least creating a stub, otherwise they are meaningless when we are talking about historical time periods.  I'll be more careful of the anon IP, but in general, a "drive-by" anon IP edit is inherently suspect, so I hope they understand why they were viewed with suspicion.  Montanabw(talk) 18:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent deletions by IP address 

message: I mentioned this in the fi-wiki Peer Review, but I'll also raise the question separately here. I'd be eager to remove entirely the part about comparative linguistics in the Early history section. At its best it's just speculation, and "knowing" hardly is compareable to "using". Just to mention an example of the same sort, Finns knew the word "lion", thanks to Bible, about centuries before the common man got to learn anything more of the creature than that it has a terrible roar. The article contains information, sourced, on hard evidence of horses in Finnish areas. Pitke (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not dismiss the rigorously researched linguistic evidence as "speculative", but it is true that the chronology of Finnic languages is presently unclear and contested. Archaeological evidence of horses (bits found in Iron Age burials) in Finland is surprisingly late, but it is almost certain that this is due to lack of research. Considering the history of horse in neighbouring areas, it is quite likely that the horse arrived in Finland durig the Late Neolithic or Bronze Age, no matter if the Finnic-speakers were in existence by the or not - but hard evidence will be lacking until an archaeo-osteologist has a bit of luck.--Kaikenlaisia (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is mostly about the vagueness of that particular sentence. The source offers no more information on the matter, so I'll remove it until the topic can be discussed properly. Pitke (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that after reading The Horse, the Wheel, and Language that comparative linguistics have their place; just that we also need to put it into proper context of relative reliability. Montanabw(talk) 18:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparative linguistics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Finnhorse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090206225253/http://www.karjalainen.fi:80/Karjalainen/Uutiset/pieni_suomenhevonen_on_siro_ja_sitke%C3%A4_3473339.html to http://www.karjalainen.fi/Karjalainen/Uutiset/pieni_suomenhevonen_on_siro_ja_sitke%C3%A4_3473339.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Finnhorse. 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/20110721083509/http://plaza.fi/stadion/ratsastus/ravit-ja-toto/raviuutiset/maailman-nopein-suomenhevonen to http://plaza.fi/stadion/ratsastus/ravit-ja-toto/raviuutiset/maailman-nopein-suomenhevonen
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724032347/http://www.retkiratsut.net/sh.php to http://www.retkiratsut.net/sh.php
*Added  tag to http://62.236.109.132/hevoset/3376
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) 20:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Finnhorse. 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/20120329235942/http://www.ukkosenpoika.com/uutiset/?p=741 to http://www.ukkosenpoika.com/uutiset/?p=741
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100125181834/http://www.thescandinavianhorse.com/FinnhorseHorseBreed.html to http://thescandinavianhorse.com/FinnhorseHorseBreed.html
*Added  tag to http://62.236.109.132/hevoset/923058
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315170736/http://www.hevosurheilu.fi/Jalostus/mustanvoikko_suomenhevonen_virallisesti_tunnistettu_629797.html to http://www.hevosurheilu.fi/Jalostus/mustanvoikko_suomenhevonen_virallisesti_tunnistettu_629797.html
*Added  tag to http://62.236.109.132/hevonen/jalkelaiset/spnro/3273
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717153106/http://www.ukkosenpoika.com/uutiset/?p=718 to http://www.ukkosenpoika.com/uutiset/?p=718
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090611075537/http://www.havia.net/suomenhevonen/kimo.php to http://www.havia.net/suomenhevonen/kimo.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723142754/http://www.havia.net/suomenhevonen/paistarikkosuvut.php to http://www.havia.net/suomenhevonen/paistarikkosuvut.php
*Added  tag to http://62.236.109.132/hevoset/336411
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313033831/http://www.suomenhevonen.info/hippos/sh2007/pdf/SHjulkaisu_englanti_nettiin.pdf to http://www.suomenhevonen.info/hippos/sh2007/pdf/SHjulkaisu_englanti_nettiin.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100928041553/http://www.hevosurheilu.fi/Jalostus/tuplavoikko_suomenhevonen_syntynyt_639355.html to http://www.hevosurheilu.fi/Jalostus/tuplavoikko_suomenhevonen_syntynyt_639355.html
*Added  tag to http://62.236.109.132/hevoset/13846
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) 10:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Finnhorse. 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://62.236.109.132/site/index
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724064628/http://www.sh.sininiitty.net/ to http://www.sh.sininiitty.net/
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) 02:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 17 external links on Finnhorse. 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/20110714045555/http://www.olympiaravit.fi/hippos/raviurheilu/ravikilpailusaannot/hevosen_ika_ja_kilpailuoikeus.php to http://www.olympiaravit.fi/hippos/raviurheilu/ravikilpailusaannot/hevosen_ika_ja_kilpailuoikeus.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100624025947/http://artikkelihaku.kansallisbiografia.fi/kuvat/8710/ to http://artikkelihaku.kansallisbiografia.fi/kuvat/8710/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422225302/http://www.tyohevosseura.fi/suomenhevostentsuunnanajettavuuskoe.htm to http://www.tyohevosseura.fi/suomenhevostentsuunnanajettavuuskoe.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723142634/http://www.havia.net/suomenhevonen/eino.php to http://www.havia.net/suomenhevonen/eino.php
*Added  tag to http://www.olympiaravit.fi/hippos/englanti/finnhorse.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713013653/http://www.olympiaravit.fi/hippos/jalostus_ja_kasvatus/rodut/suomenhevonen.php to http://www.olympiaravit.fi/hippos/jalostus_ja_kasvatus/rodut/suomenhevonen.php
*Added  tag to http://62.236.109.132/hevoset/7998
*Added  tag to http://62.236.109.132/hevoset/14656
*Added  tag to http://62.236.109.132/hevoset/3971
*Added  tag to http://www.olympiaravit.fi/multimagazine/web/2008/kesakuu2008/7/tyohevonen.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110813080608/http://kaupunginosat.net/ruskeasuo/lehti/kevat2007.pdf to http://www.kaupunginosat.net/ruskeasuo/lehti/kevat2007.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720191006/http://suomenratsutfi.virtualserver19.nebula.fi/in-english to http://suomenratsutfi.virtualserver19.nebula.fi/in-english
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422225315/http://www.tyohevosseura.fi/kantakirjausohjeetjasaannot.htm to http://www.tyohevosseura.fi/kantakirjausohjeetjasaannot.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718161613/http://www.suomenhevosliitto.fi/suomenhevonen_2010_www.pdf to http://www.suomenhevosliitto.fi/suomenhevonen_2010_www.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420123647/http://www.suomenhevonen.info/sh100v/fi/sh_tanaan/index.php to http://www.suomenhevonen.info/sh100v/fi/sh_tanaan/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130610013927/http://www.hevosurheilu.fi/Jalostus/lis%C3%A4%C3%A4_suomenkirjavia_833526.html to http://www.hevosurheilu.fi/Jalostus/lis%C3%A4%C3%A4_suomenkirjavia_833526.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100125085700/http://suomenpienhevonen.fi/pienhevonen/ to http://suomenpienhevonen.fi/pienhevonen/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130702005421/http://www.hevosurheilu.fi/Jalostus/uusia_v%C3%A4rihevosia_838915.html to http://www.hevosurheilu.fi/Jalostus/uusia_v%C3%A4rihevosia_838915.html
*Added  tag to http://62.236.109.132/hevoset/108737
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718161613/http://www.suomenhevosliitto.fi/suomenhevonen_2010_www.pdf to http://www.suomenhevosliitto.fi/suomenhevonen_2010_www.pdf
*Added  tag to http://yle.fi/urheilu/lajit/muut/ravit/2009/07/ip_vipotiina_me-lukemiin_mikkelissa_1338338.html
*Added  tag to http://62.236.109.132/hevoset/392339
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422225310/http://www.tyohevosseura.fi/suomenhevostentsuunnanvetokoe.htm to http://www.tyohevosseura.fi/suomenhevostentsuunnanvetokoe.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402104022/http://www.suomenhevonen.info/sh100v/fi/tulevaisuuden_sh_materiaalit/Microsoft_Word_-_kansainvaelistyminen_nettiversio.pdf to http://www.suomenhevonen.info/sh100v/fi/tulevaisuuden_sh_materiaalit/Microsoft_Word_-_kansainvaelistyminen_nettiversio.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313033817/http://www.suomenhevonen.info/hippos/jalostus_ja_kasvatus/jalostusohjesaannot/jalostusohjesaantopdft/kantakirjaus_sh_net.pdf to http://www.suomenhevonen.info/hippos/jalostus_ja_kasvatus/jalostusohjesaannot/jalostusohjesaantopdft/kantakirjaus_sh_net.pdf
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) 19:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified