Talk:List of horse breeds

message: I need your help if you know something about horses.  I've create a new template for adding a standardized infobox to each horse listed in List of horse breeds.  The template is shown here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds and there's a sample with minimal information in American Paint Horse.  The problem is that I don't really know what should or could go in the box. For example, for the  Dog breeds template, we can identify specific major breed registry organizations. But for horses, is that true? And what else makes sense to go in the table--e.g., "type"? (Draft, pony,...what else?)  Please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse breeds. Thanks!  Elf | Talk 23:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New horse breed template--need your help

message: Can someone tell me what a "Manchurian pony" is please, and if it goes by another name. Many thanks.--MacRusgail 01:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NO clue.  I have had moments of thinking I should just toss every red link on the page, but someone might want to create an article.  I'd say if you can search the research links at the bottom and Google the net and not find anything, you might be able to toss that one if we can't find any evidence (other than some other list somewhere) that this is actually a "breed."  Any help is always appreciated. Montanabw 17:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchurian Pony 

message: The external link for "The Breeds List maintained by the International Museum of the horse" does not seem to be working. Could someone check into this?--Yamenah 02:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go the the Kentucky horse park or international museum of the horse web site, they just rearranged everything and changed all their links.  This is causing problems across all the wikipedia horse pages, Feel free to find the new pages and fix as you can, it would be appreciated.  Montanabw 03:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: I haven't the time to do this right now, but Bavarian Warmblood will be a pretty easy article to create, many legitimate links, here's a Google search on it:  http://www.google.com/search?q=Bavarian+warmblood&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8  If you want to write your first article, this looks to be one breed that needs one -- just don't copy and paste, they'll slap you with a copyvio here...and remember to include your sources. Montanabw 18:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easy article for someone to write 

message: Folks, some of you have been around long enough to know better!  Don't just start putting in red links about some breed without checking to see if a) A variation of the name is already on the list, b) an article actually exists out there and hasn't yet been added to the list, and c)  that you check both the horse and the pony lists. I had to merge THREE different articles on the Pottok/Pottock/Pottock Pony not too long ago.  Let's just not do this, Okay? ARRGH!  Montanabw 17:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARRGH! 

message: Folks, things are improving, in that at least stubs are being created, but one sentence does not an article make.  If you are going to the bother of making a stub, will you kindly at least wikify what you have (properly wikify, too...I spent weeks being sure I found the proper articles and learned to use piped links, you can too), and list FULL citations to the sources you contulted?  (If you don't have a hardcopy book in front of you at the computer,then go to Amazon.com or something and swipe the citation material there.)  Also, please don't just cut and past the horse infobox without removing the placeholders for sections for which we don't have material, it looks astonishingly bizarre if you leave them in.   Yes, I know I'm anal, but I suspect we all are dedicated to making Wikipedia a legitimate and useful resource for everyone, yes?  Montanabw 19:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting better, but now expand the stubs, and a few more tasks 

message: Instead of adding red links to the list for articles we want to start "someday," I am putting in a proposed new article idea I haven't had time to write, with some research links.  If anyone wants to take the ball and run, feel free. Montanabw 22:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though Wikiproject horse breeds also has a to do list, it's complicated, this is faster and simpler. Montanabw 22:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox 

message: I'm not saying this literally. I'm simply wondering if it would be probable to found a new breed by breeding Throughbreds, Friesians, Arabians and Palominos. I know that there might be a slight problem fine-tuning the muscle structure and the skeleton and all that, and the types of blood might interfere, but I'm willing to spend both the time and the money. Actually, it's been stuck in my head for a while, and I wanted to know if theres any breeders here who would know if the blood types interfere.Brain sage (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New type of breed...? 

message: The annotations about alternate names, distinguishing remarks, etc do not belong on this list page.  Instead, they should be dealt with on the pertinent article(s). --Una Smith (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, why is it wrong to have alternate names or other information on this page? Other lists (including featured lists such as List of Archbishops of Canterbury) are annotated. In fact, most featured lists require more than just a list of names. This isn't a disambiguation page, where explanations are discouraged. Also, what do you see about it that has a POV? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ealdgyth that this is exactly the place for alternate names. That way people are able to find whatever name they are looking for, even if it is not the most common name of the breed. I am also confused about the POV tag... Dana boomer (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I wasn't clear.  I said the annotations do not belong there.  Alternate names should be treated as regular list entries.  The POV is in the structure of the list.  This is a list of names of breeds;  splitting the list into putative horses and ponies conflates the name with the classification, and requires POV choosing between horse and pony.  Here is an example.  There used to be a stud book for American polo ponies, so in that sense they were a breed.  Now Polo pony is a type, but where does it belong in List of horse breeds as now organized:  In the pony section, or the horse section?  Most polo ponies are not pony sized. --Una Smith (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by annotations? Give an example please. As for the "POV" in choosing between the horse and the pony section, I think that you're overinflating the problem a bit. The breed is placed in whichever category the main breed registry considers it. Haflingers and Sorraias are often pony-sized, but their registries consider them horses, so they are listed as horses. As for your example of Polo ponies, I'm not sure that anyone would consider them a true breed, even if there was a studbook for them for a while. However, they would probably go in the "horse" section, because I believe the studbook considered them horses, rather than ponies, no matter what their name. If you have a specific breed that you believe is currently in the wrong category, please bring it here and give us examples, rather than just generic opinion statements. Dana boomer (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually can see expanding this list to give more information on the breed standards and stuff .. akin to the list of Archbishops I referred to above. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we agree, Ealdgyth.  I am all for a systematic table with such comparative information as the date of founding of each breed's breed registry/stud book/etc., date of extinction (for extinct breeds), whether the registry is open or closed, and the breeds of its founding members. --Una Smith (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: *Pura Raza Española, Pure Spanish-bred, and Spanish Purebred all should be redirects and included in this list.  This is similar to the treatment of multiple common names of plants and animals.  --Una Smith (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: *Here, I would use Appendix Quarter Horse, which at present redirects to American Quarter Horse.  --Una Smith (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: *This is intended to indicate the "preferred name"?  It is a matter of POV, which should be dealt with on Brumby, complete with citation of sources.  Rather than declare for one name here, simply list Australian Brumby, which at present is a redirect to Brumby. --Una Smith (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Una and Ealdgyth:  Can we have one crisis at a time, please? Can we please wait to review this list until we know what's going on with the templates and the categories?  At this point, the list is stable, has rules and has some organization.  It was created because, for one thing, there were once things like three separate articles on the Konik.  For now an we just leave this be?  PLEASE!  Some of us do not live on wikipedia and as the primary editor of this page, I request that everyone take a deep breath and step back for a while.  The list can be worked on later.  Montanabw(talk) 05:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm in no hurry. I just figured I'd speak up and make my query about the tagging and stuff clear. As I agreed with Dana's request to not do anything quickly, I didn't feel the need to repeat myself. "I can see expanding this list..." does not mean "I'm going to start expanding this list asap." Like I have the time. However, I'll register a strong disagree (since obviously that went awry before) that anything be done precipitously. The list is fine as it is, in my mind, and improvements can be discussed in a logical calm, measured pace that allows plenty of others to weigh in. There is nothing earth shakingly wrong with this list, you know. I'm not convinced that we need to do anything and I don't recall ever saying anything here that anything needed to be done right this minute. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure thing, Montanabw.  Meanwhile, the tags can stay on the article.  --Una Smith (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Una, seems you confuse me and Ealdgyth, but either way, I will go along with keeping the tags, but I am also restoring the categories.  Article remains stable for now other than all of us fixing the usual vandalism as has been past practice or adding legitimate new articles that have been created (not redirects).    Montanabw(talk) 19:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Baudet de Poitou is a donkey breed.  Probably there are others.  Separate list, or expand scope of this one? --Una Smith (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Donkey breed list. Most donkey breeders consider their animals separate from horses, and I don't blame them. They are a different type of animal with different behaviors. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there already is a very short donkey breed list within the Donkey article itself.  Until there are more breed articles than the few that exist, (I think there might be 5 or 6?) it really doesn't make sense to have a separate list elsewhere.  But when the time comes, a separate donkey list is also fine with me.  We can add it as a "see also" link here if that occurs.  Montanabw(talk) 20:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, we can keep the scope here horse breeds only.  To Horse breed#See also I added a link to the Donkey breeds section.  --Una Smith (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand scope to all equines? 

message: The baschir, or baskjir horse, is nor related to the American curly horse. 
The baskjir horse has normal coat, not curly at all. Most horse allergic people can be around this horses, as they can with the curly ones. 
The baskjir comes from the Baskjirien in the Russian Federation. Where they use the horse for riding and driving as well for meat and milk.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.150.104 (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, then we need yet another article.  If you want to draft up something and post your link here, we can look it over and help you out.  We seem to have Bashkir Curlies, American Curlies, and at least a couple other subgroups.  If you can use English-language sources, that is best.  Thanks.  Montanabw(talk) 18:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baschir horse is a seperate breed 

message: I came away from this page knowing less than when I started. It is quite confusing to a layman looking for some basic information. There are far too many links to find what I want. For example; there is a sentence in the Arabian horse article that mentions its one of the top ten most popular breeds, a link to the other 9 would be handy. Just my thoughts :) 84.92.169.252 (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less is more 

message: The List of draft horse breeds, see User_talk:KVDP#Draft_horse_list.
Although I agree that the list might have not been entirely up to standards, I still feel that at present, we miss a list/information allowing someone to immediatelly select a draft horse for his/her farm. I thus suggest that either we tag the appropriate draft horses with "Category:Draft horse", and then simply have the Category:Draft horse article to display the list, or we add additional information to the list of horse breeds article to allow someone to immediatelly see which horses in the list are draft horses.
KVDP (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How are we to determine which horses are draft horses and which are not? Individual horses of most breeds have been used for "draft" purposes at one point or another... Horses like Akhal-Tekes, Andalusians, Arabians, Trakehners and many of the others you have on the list are never considered draft horses by reliable sources, although some members of those breeds have been used for driving or farming at one point or another in time. What about a breed like the Cleveland Bay? It is used mainly for driving, but reliable sources all state specifically that it is not a draft horse? While some breeds are obvious, others are not. I don't really think that a simple laundry list of breeds would be much help for someone looking to select a breed for their farm - a list says nothing about how different breeds have adapted to various soils, climates, jobs, etc. I would suggest that improving the draft horse article would be our best bet at this point, as IMO a general overview article on draft breeds would be more helpful to the general reader than a simple list of breeds. There are even few enough true draft breeds that you could have a section that describes many or all of the breeds in prose, along with some of their defining characteristics, i.e. "The Soviet Heavy Draft and the Russian Heavy Draft were draft breeds developed in the former Soviet Union. They were mainly used for xy and z, and were developed because of a need for a, b and c". A quick description of each - perhaps that Suffolk Punchs are always chestnut and so are good for matched teams or that some other English draft breeds were developed for use in heavy clay soil - would probably be more useful than a general list. It would all have to be sourced to reliable sources, though, which was where your list was significantly lacking. Breeds that are debatable as draft horses (some reliable sources say they are, some say they aren't) could have their own subsection presenting the arguments on either side. Again, I think that work on all parts of the main article (not just the breed section) is probably the way to go, as it would be more helpful to both lay readers and those looking to begin farming with draft horses. Dana boomer (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. KVDP, I apologize if I was a little "bitey," but WPEQ has a LOT of problems with multiple articles getting created on the same subject and then it takes forever to get everything organized again.  I DO very much appreciate that you came here to discuss.  Dana is right: We DO need to focus on the draft horse article as the means to improve coverage on this type of working animal (speaking of another article that needs work!).   I redirected the list because it was not only inaccurate and undisambiguated, also based on a poor source, but primarily because it's a content fork that is not needed.  The problem is just that:  what IS a "draft horse?"  An article can explain the nuances, a list cannot.  For example, the Finnhorse is a classic example, one breed, same ancestry, four different body types recognized within the same registry, one of which is a light draft type.  Some categories, such as gaited horse are easy to create in a list, as the membership is small, but still requires narrative and explanation, though in the case of breeds like the American Saddlebred where some are gaited and some are not, there is room to argue (ditto some "ungaited" breeds, such as the Arabian, who have gaited individuals).  Similarly, our articles on other "types," such as warmblood and stock horse need to be at least as much narrative as list.  Even then, there are a lot of multi-purpose breeds where aficionados would want them on many lists to somehow promote their versatility.  (I happen to know a 1/2-Tennessee Walker who was used as a stock horse.  This doesn't mean that Tennessee Walkers in general are stock horses...! =:-O  ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft horses

message: On what basis do we have, for example, Banker Horse, but Blazer horse.  Is this a matter of whim, inconsistency of sourcing, or is there an established principle underlying the distinction?  Kevin McE (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia capitalization conventions for second words usually colliding with title case, most of the time.  Most breeds are known just as their breed name (Morgan, Arabian, Thoroughbred, etc.) and if the word "horse" must be added to avoid disambiguation issues on wiki, then the gang at WPEQ decided proper form generally should be "Xyz horse"  However, there are a few exceptions, and those are when the word "horse" is in the official breed name, most notably American Quarter Horse. (i.e.  Most people call an Arabian horse an "Arabian" but no one calls a Quarter horse a "quarter"! )  We're fixing these, slowly.   (Here, Banker Horse might need to be Banker horse, but I'd have to review that particular article to be sure)  The pony articles are a particular nightmare in this regard, as many have the word "pony" in their official name, but yet the other problem is if we capitalize all of them, then we have to create a bunch of redirects because wiki thinks a capitalized word is a whole different word...sigh.  Also, wiki capitalization folks often plow through a whole bunch of articles and remove the second word capitals whether they needed to or not, and half the time it's just not worth fighting about it, we only have something like 350 breed articles.  Big pain in the butt, all around.  Montanabw(talk) 06:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Montanabw, can you point me to that discussion?  What was the reasoning for avoiding the usual WP convention of "Xyz (horse)" for disambiguation?  (Most people call it an Arabian?  Everyone I know calls it an Arab...)  Richard New Forest (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Just the Brits, me boy (and some other UK English speakers, some of them)  Let's start with the ArabIAN Horse Association (USA), the Canadian ArabIAN Horse association, and the World ArabIAN Horse Association (WAHO) and many of its worldwide associated groups.  Only the UK and a few other groups say "Arab." Montanabw(talk) 02:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: But as for the (horse) thing, the problem is that there was (and still is) a mix.  I think the discussion occurred over at the WPEQ talk page a while back (it's probably archived somewhere).  The thinking was that there is a place to ignore the wiki MOS rules a little bit, and this was one of them. We appeared to agree that for topics like bit (horse) or black (horse) or other such concepts, parenthetical article names work OK (even if it's not yet consistent), but it does NOT work very well for the breed names.  The reasoning was that there is such variety  in naming -- some breed names commonly include the word "horse" in them (and especially the word "pony"), some even make the word part of the official breed name (Quarter Horse, Paint Horse, Banker Horse, Tennessee Walking Horse, Finnhorse, Shetland Pony, Welsh Pony, Connemara Pony, etc.) , and so the remaining breeds (Arabian, Morgan, Andalusian, Hanoverian, etc...) may be just simpler to title with "horse" lower case without the parentheses when there is a need to disambiguate. It also avoids the problem of having to have a non-parenthetical redirect to every article for searching purposes and linking -- If even the people on the WPEQ breeds task force can't keep straight when one breed has "horse" in its official name and when one doesn't, how will anyone else?  Just for one example, Exmoor (pony) looks a bit ridiculous when everyone calls it an Exmoor Pony, yes?  Not that the job is finished-- there are still a number of breed articles with the parenthetical naming, but they are a minority.  It's also a total mishmash of when we have "horse" or "pony" in upper case versus lower case (especially with wiki MOS cops doing random drive-bys of 10 or 12 articles at a pop, but never all of them).  So the notion was that killing the parentheses would simplify matters and avoid the appearance of two different formats to naming the breeds-- particularly avoiding fights like whether it is a Shetland (pony) or a Shetland pony (or if it's a Shetland Pony, for that matter).   Does that make things any clearer?  Montanabw(talk) 02:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No...  Richard New Forest (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well.  If you have a better idea for a standard that avoids a wiki-do-gooder driving by and creating American Quarter (horse), let me know!  Montanabw(talk) 23:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: Royal Canadian Mounted Police horses - is it a horse breed? Kind regrads Minoo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.2.226 (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not a breed. They ride horses of whatever breed suits the position. Dana boomer (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RCMP 

message: ; Question 1: What do we do with sport horses, warmbloods, and newer 'breeds' with open stud books? Paragraph 2 of the lead, and sentence 4 under "Types of horse" seems to point to putting them under "Types".
: My opinion is that if it has an open stud book (usually with a small number of horses registered), and allows multiple outcrossed breeds, it should be placed under "types" because it can't "breed true".
: Some of the wikilinked standalone articles aren't clear on whether a breed is a new one, breeds true, has open stud book, etc., but a little digging in the registry (usually included as an external link) will clear that up. There may, however, be a few of these crossbreed registries that are older and might warrant going under "Horses" not "Types", but I would hinge my decision based on whether it is still operating with an open stud book that allows more than one breed for outcrosses.
; Question 2: Sport horse has no citations since 2009; is this the new term for "warmblood"? Or is perhaps warmblood now a subset of sport horse? If either are true, then maybe we make a section under "Type" to split out the sport horses, warmbloods and new-breed-crosses-trying-to-be-breeds, to split them out from "General types" which would include the more generic terms such as cob, pony, feral, grade, hack, hunter, polo pony, stock horse, etc. The warmblood or sporthorse section could include those such as Arabo-friesian, Friesian cross, German Warmblood, Part-Arabian, and some others.
::”Sport horse”, like stock horse is a catchall term for horses of multiple breeds used in a specific discipline (in the case of sport horses, the FEI jumping/dressage disciplines, basically).
   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  02:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer to Q1 is easy: if it has a stud-book it isn't a type. A type is something like a hunter, a cart-horse, a hack, a police horse and so on. The first article listed as a type here, the Autre que Pur-sang, is not a type but a breed – it has a stud-book. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  AQPS has been under the section "Types" since it was added in 2007. And the descriptive information at the start of that section, matched with the description in the wiki article, indicates it should be there. About half the articles I just googled said it was "technically not a breed", so that's a weird item to pick to make your argument. Registries and studbooks are usually the same thing, so I hope that's not the point you're trying to make. Maybe we need some more input here from other editors.  are you up to joining this discussion?    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  10:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m late to this discussion, but some of the prior distinction came from assorted huge debates years back over whether an open stud book was a real “breed” or not.  We had similar dramas over whether landrace and feral “breeds” without studbooks were “real” breeds.  Add to that the question of designer crossbreds, which is a huge issue in the USA, and you can see the need for some discretion. Consensus can change, and basically, my take is that this article is a list of “breed” and “breed-related articles” on Wikipedia—and not a collection of redlinks.  So if the internal classification moves around, like for the AQPS, that’s not a big deal, so long as they are in there someplace. I do think though, that piped links need to be avoided except where a breed doesn’t have its own article…or maybe where there’s a kerfuffle over whether its a breed or a strain.  Montanabw(talk) 15:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sport horses, warmbloods, and new breeds with open stud books 

message: One way to resolve the “breed or type” debate is to throw all the groups that have recording registries but might not really be “breeds” into their own category. So I created the heading “crossbred registration” and threw a bunch of the articles that were listed as “types” into that category. That way we acknowledge that some people are trying to organize these animals into a breed, as distinguished from “types” that will never be breeds, like hunters, stock, horses, gaited, horses, etc. maybe that will minimize some drama. Montanabw(talk) 15:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: On first glance, I like the new separation/distinction.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  17:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossbreds and types