Talk:Banker horse/Archive 1

message: # http://www.shacklefordhorses.org/ Shackleford 
#*Much good material here.  Better history section than most.  Home page is cutesy and initially a turn-off because of that, but inner pages have good data. I think this one is pretty credible overall.  Mild "PR" tone, but not excessively commercial. I'm OK with this one, particularly the history and characteristics pages specifically. Montanabw(talk) 22:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment on the list is that this is a more comprehensive reference list than 90% of that horse breed articles.  Most look pretty decent, most are from sources that would pass muster with the WPEQ team.  Montanabw(talk) 02:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Resources 

message: * 
This book, which I just recently received, has two pages on the Banker Horse, which I"m more than glad to help source into the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, this has become quite useful. Plus, it has a really cool picture of a chicken on the cover.--Yohmom (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  another resource 

message: I did a quick and far-from-thorough search of the 'Agricola' database of the National Agricultural Library. The search function is free to use: see
 Some of these articles may prove useful to make 'Banker Horse' a comprehensive article.
*Title: Equine feeding practices in central North Carolina: a preliminary survey.
Author: Honore, E.K.
Uhlinger, C.A.
Found In:   Journal of equine veterinary science. Aug 1994. v. 14 (8)
p. 424-429.
ISSN 0737-0806
*Title:Feral horse seasonal habitat use on a coastal barrier spit.
Author: Rheinhardt, R.D.
Rheinhardt, M.C.
Found In:   Journal of range management. 2004 May, v. 57, no. 3
p. 253-258.
ISSN 0022-409X
*Title: Iberian Origins of New World Horse Breeds.
Author: Luís, Cristina
Bastos-Silveira, Cristiane
Cothran, E. Gus
Oom, Maria do Mar
Found In:   Journal of heredity. The American Genetic Association 2006
Mar., v. 97, no. 2
p. 107-113.
ISSN 0022-1503
*Title: Genetic Diversity in a Feral Horse Population from Sable
Island, Canada [electronic resource].
Author: Plante, Yves
Vega-Pla, Jose Luis
Lucas, Zoe
Colling, Dave
de March, Brigitte
Buchanan, Fiona
Found In:   Journal of heredity. The American Genetic Association 2007
Sept., v. 98, no. 6
p. 594-602.
ISSN 0022-1503
*Title: Domestication of the horse: Genetic relationships between domestic and wild horses [electronic resource].
Author: Kavar, Tatjana
Dovc, Peter
Found In:   Livestock science. Amsterdam; New York: Elsevier 2008
July, v. 116, no. 1-3
p. 1-14.
ISSN 1871-1413
Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other possible sources 

message: to come play in my  sandbox!
I am a bit afraid to jump right and and start butchering the article, and in an effort to keep the revision numbers reasonable, could someone critique part of the characteristics section there? I just want to make sure that the citations are not compleatly off base, and that my syntax and diction arn't too horrible...--Yohmom (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, made a few tweaks.  Don't forget to incorporate any useful material already in the existing article.  Montanabw(talk) 00:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hereby invite you... 

message: Alexis, You are fortunate to have a team willing to expend that much energy in a critique. It may look formidable; however, they have just made your task considerably easier. I trust you will not disappoint and will address these concerns to the best of your ability. This is an interesting article, with great potential for FA at some point down the road. Best of luck. --JimmyButler (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fortunate One 

message: As the section heading says ... --Malleus Fatuorum 13:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the policy is "lowercase second and subsequent words in titles" unless the whole title is a proper noun phrase such as a first and last name. I think it is safe to say that it ought to be "Banker horse". See Wikipedia:Naming conventions, a policy. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Renamed. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me.  Occasionally, "Horse" is part of the breed's official name (as in American Quarter Horse, NO ONE calls them "quarters!"), but most of the time the breed is just referred to by "first name" so to speak, and "horse" is just added to avoid confusion at wiki  (as in Arabian horse).  Here, the horses are colloquially called "Bankers," so I favor the latter construction and I am OK with this move. (Anyone now want to do the same for the other 200 or so mis-capitalized articles on list of horse breeds, particularly the pony ones?)  :-P   Montanabw(talk) 17:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't this article be called "Banker horse"? 

message: Well, I don't see any outright prohibition on ads for grad school in the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines guideline. So I'll risk it. Some editors working on Banker horse may be interested in a posting on the Ecolog listserv...
Opportunity: Ph.D. or M.Sc. to Ph.D. (transfer) in resource selection
strategies of feral horses 
Location: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada and Université
Laval, Québec, QC, Canada
Description: We are currently developing a long-term, individual-based
program of research into the ecology and evolution of the feral horses
living on Sable Island, Nova Scotia, Canada. As part of this initiative, we
are recruiting a student to ask questions of resource selection strategies
(including optimal foraging) using the horse population as a model. This
research will complement a team of at least two other students working on
questions of horse life history and plant community ecology on Sable Island.
The student is expected to begin between May and September 2009, and will be
guaranteed a full 3-year fellowship. Additional funding opportunities are
available; we especially encourage students with funding in hand or who will
be competitive for scholarships to apply. The student will be co-supervised
by Dr. Philip McLoughlin at the University of Saskatchewan (home department
for the student) and Dr. Daniel Fortin at Université Laval (the student will
be expected to make several visits to the lab of Dr. Fortin). Field work
will occur during summers. Candidates should have a strong background in
quantitative ecology, behavioural ecology, and population ecology. Deadline:
Review of applications will commence in March, 2009. Interested applicants
should send a cover letter, CV (including 3 references), and transcript via
email to both Dr. Philip McLoughlin (philip.mcloughlin@usask.ca) and Dr.
Daniel Fortin (daniel.fortin@bio.ulaval.ca). Please contact by email for
more information, and/or visit these websites: 
http://www.usask.ca/biology/mcloughlin/ (in development) 
http://www.cef-cfr.ca/index.php?n=Membres.DanielFortin?userlang=en 
Additional information on Sable Island (the site of field work) can be found
at: 
http://www.greenhorsesociety.com/
Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Loads of the stuff that comes up on the search engines at the library deals with the Sable Island horses. This sounds cool, but I should probably try to graduate highschool first...--Yohmom (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're obviously smarter than the average bear Yohmom, so get back to work and think about a proper lead for your article. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Graduate opportunity 

message: Is this credible for a basic definition  of "barrier island? "
http://science.howstuffworks.com/barrier-island.htm
--Yohmom (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that'll be fine as a source. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Stuff Works 

message: Someone might want to check to make sure that they are licensed correctly, and that what is put in the article is formatted right. --Yohmom (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The licensing looks OK to me, and I tweaked the formatting earlier.  It's fairly simple - no images left-aligned directly under headings, no forced sizes except for the lead image, try to stagger them left and right, and don't sandwich text between images. Dana boomer (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Would it be possible to create a re-direct to this article from the search term "Shackleford pony?" It's what everyone down here calls them.--Yohmom (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Ealdgyth - Talk 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

text: And done! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huzzah! Thanks! I figured that this might improve the chances for someone other than my dad to read the article. --Yohmom (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent supporting images; hopefully they will pass muster with the copyright police! How nice that your father stays abreast of your academic endeavors. I'm willing to bet your article will be a source of information for far more people than you think. Good luck on the GA attempt - one more before the close of our semester and we can advocate for a tie (FA Race) with the University of British Columbia saving me the cost of a can of opossum stew --JimmyButler (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet, if the truth be told, that even you are surprised that your students are doing so well in the competition. Right up there with the university bods. So far as this article's concerned, just Google "banker horse" and see what comes up first. It's not just Yohmom's Dad that'll be reading this. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 05:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: I'm not commenting a lot here any more, just doing little tweaks where I think I can improve things (whether I do or not is, of course, open to debate).  Looks very good.  Montanabw(talk) 23:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just popping in to agree with Montanabw that things are looking very nice.  I just saw that you put it up for GAN, good luck!  Just as a note, if you haven't already seen it, you may want to check out the fact tag and hidden comment that Montanabw dropped on the page.  You probably have plenty of time to deal with it, as the GAN backlog is a bit long right now.  I'm doing some reviews to help, won't do this article because I've contributed a bit to it, but hopefully my efforts will make other editors get around to this article sooner! Please feel free to let me know if there's anything I can help with :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the reminder about the ref. The whole paragraph came from that source, although I am still checking to see if I can get a more specific/better source for that part about the wrecks. --Yohmom (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just me 

message: Yay!  Congrats and very nice work, Yohmom - your first GA!  Take a quick break and a nice long breath and then answer the most important question - do you plan to take it to FA? *grin* Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woo-hoooooo! 

message: Hi guys, I saw this one at Wikiproject North Carolina, I'll give it a go.  Yohmom, welcome to you and to the whole class, I see you're catching on very quickly.  I'll make some edits directly to the article ... all the guys in the thread above know me, and they'll be happy to revert me if they disagree :)  I have some questions:
*In the lead, it's just a little confusing (for some readers, not all) to say that a "breed" is compact, because a breed is a kind of category, and a compact category means a category with not a lot of things in it.  Also, as a horse layman, "small" is implied to me by "compact", so unless there's a special horsey meaning, I'm going to keep "compact" and boot "small".  Also, we copyeditors tend to be at our pickiest in the lead section.  But I could be wrong, let me know. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I"m going to do a little copyediting to see if I can tweak all of the above.  See if it helps.  It is VERY important to define these horses as "feral," as they fit that definition to a T.   I have to say that if Bankers are like the [{Chincoteague pony]],  I would not describe Chincoteagues overall as heavily muscled, as least not in comparison to the Pryor Mountain Mustang.  However, the Bankers DO look more compact than a lot of gaited breeds--hard to say from the photos what's skinny and what's long coupling... And E, now, now... (grinning) Some Arabs ARE small AND compact...just not the "new style" stuff!  LOL!Montanabw(talk) 00:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, no Dan, you're STUCK with the job. I'm not a copyeditor, that's for sure! Please! One thing I've learned at FAC is that the more copyeditors the better. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting 

message: I've used the dab finder tool here to find and fix two of the three dab links present in the article. However, there is one that I couldn't figure out. Currituck is a dab link, but none of the possible articles appear to be about an island, which this article implies by using the phrasing "on Currituck" in the second paragraph of the "Life on the Barrier Islands" section. Yohmom, would you like to take a run at this and see if you can figure it out, since you're the one with the true knowledge about the subject? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Long story short- it's the same thing as Bodie Island. (The one with the true knowledge? Whoa. Thanks for the ego boost. heh heh)--Yohmom (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguating Links 

message: Did someone ask someone to do this to the article? Otherwise, isn't it frowned upon to change referencing systems without discussion? Ealdgyth - Talk 04:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I like they way the refs are done in the Intro to Evolution article. The way they link down from the notes to citation section is pretty sweet. I was playing around with the citations in my Sandbox, using the Harv citations, just to see if they would work any better with the page number thing (they haven't).  But no...I'm not sure where this came from...--Yohmom (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Well, they just got switched... Ealdgyth - Talk 04:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Interesting. And weird.--Yohmom (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Argh! My error. I saw this and jumped in at the wrong place. If it's not welcome, please feel free to revert. LeadSongDog (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries, it was just a little odd, and I didn't want to revert without finding out more. (As for the harvb stuff, I never touch it) Ealdgyth - Talk 04:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hmmm. It's not jumping down to the "reference" section at all. I was having the same problem in my Sandbox, but only for a couple. Two seemed to work and two didn't. (That's when I went running for help) So strange.  --Yohmom (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  (ec)I tend to avoid it except in articles with massive reflists, e.g. World War I. The templates are rather too sensitive to excess whitespace in the parameters of cite and citation, so they make for a high-maintenance result. This may change, but who knows when. Thanks for the understanding.LeadSongDog (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: * WHOO! It's working now. (At least in my sandbox). So I guess I'll continue doing the rest there and then transfer them over, unless anyone has objections? --Yohmom (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * To summarize the issues that had to get fixed:1. correct "last1", "last2" etc.2. correct "year" or full "date"3. replace  with LeadSongDog (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: * Done...I think.--Yohmom (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Looking at the diff it seems the only remaining issue is p.77 vs. p.177: which is correct?LeadSongDog (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks for catching that. There isn't even 177 pages in the book!--Yohmom (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Great. My work here is done. Hi-o Silver - Away! LeadSongDog (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that hi-ho Silver - Away and see also white (horse)!  LOL!  Montanabw(talk) 21:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Question here, why are the pubmed and other journal references (the two doi's at the bottom) listed under bibliography? No doubt there are differences between the fields of medicine and equine studies, yet (at least for medicine) I know that the bibliography section is frowned upon and generally used when numerous book references are present. Might I suggest, although I may be terribly wrong in doing so, that the journal's be linked within the section "Notes" which also be renamed to "References?" Sorry to be nit-picky, God knows I hate it when people try to shoot me down over such miniscule things, but I hope it's best in the long run. FoodPuma 21:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I found that out a while back, but between my shoddy internet connection and the PR, I haven't really had the chance to change it yet. It's not a super big deal so I've put it on the back burner for now. Plus, switching the stuff over in the first place was way more than my 5 brain cells could handle...they are still trying to recover! --Yohmom (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

text: It's standard practice to put the published resources in a separate Bibliogaphy section, so I think the present layout is just fine. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switch to harvb citation system? 

message: I think the Bankers are seen as a vital part of North Carolina's coastal heritage uses the word "vital" in a misleadingly weak sense. The statement is diffuse and indirect (some people think). My guess is that many people have come to think of the Bankers as a characteristic and desired element in the landscape. Maybe their grazing or trampling molds the landscape in an interesting and desired way, but the preceding paragraph suggests otherwise. In any case, the factual content should be expressed more clearly. --Ettrig (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the statement is obscure, even without the word vital. "Coastal heritage" sounds very positive and since the Bankers are part of it people want them to remain. But what is the actual substance, so to speak, of this goodness. What are the significant good aspects of this heritage? Or is this just a case of conservatism? If there are no answers to questions like this, then it may be better to just say that people like them to be there or think they are nice. --Ettrig (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ettrig, the statement is sourced.  I believe the statement is in accordance with the footnote.  Do you have a real point here, or are you just nitpicking? Montanabw(talk) 05:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My complaint is that the statement is obscure. The defense is that the statement is probably true. This defense doesn't address the complaint. My problem is probably that I cannot see how something being part of a heritage can be a motivation for letting it continue to exist. A counter example: The January 2009 issue of Scientific American has evolution as its theme. On page 50 it says "...the human body resembles the tangle of wiring and pipes in an aging house, a heritage from fish and amphibian ancestors." and "Evolutionary hand-me-downs inherited from fish and tadpoles have left us with hernias, hiccups and other maladies". So heritages are not always good. So I doubt that this "explanation" provides a good understanding of how people think and feel about letting the Bankers continue to live on the banks. --Ettrig (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Ettrig: feel free to be nickpicky, but please keep in mind that I have 758437280754230 things to do and my time on the wiki is very limited. I (kind of) see your point and will address it...eventually. The statement can be more specific, but the information is in a book that I no longer posess. It will take me a good two weeks to get it back from IRL so please just be patient for a bit. --Yohmom (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly the right spirit. You read my comments if you want to and you do as I suggest if you find the argument sound. Virtually all kinds of people are found active in Wikipedia. The best thing to do is use your own judgement. --Ettrig (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Perhaps I'm missing your point? I tend to do that. However As the Bankers are seen as a part of North Carolina's coastal heritage, they have been allowed to remain on the barrier islands. That seems to be a statement of fact. They are seen as part of NC coastal heritage. The battle over maintaining the population was based on that widely held view point. Whether such a view has merit would reflect a POV. But it is as documented in multiple sources a widely held perspective among those with a vested interest in the horses and the area in which they live; and thus is very relevant to the article. If I am not mistaken, the connection to the "coastal heritage" was the specific reason that NC govt. officials enacted legislation to protect the horses. The opposing perspective, that the horses are an environmental disaster is addressed in the article. I'm not seeing an imbalance or bias in the writing. Agencies, associations, and protection groups see them as a historically significant part of our coastal heritage. How else can one state that without diminishing their position? --JimmyButler (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps this is where I could toss in that fact from that book you gave me (if i remember correctly, them being the oldest NA breed...?). I've also got a statement on the way about the importance of keeping them around because of something to do with the need to preserve their bloodlines. I think it would address Ettrig's concern (but I might be missing the point too...), by providing further elaboration. If not, then the extra info can't hurt. --Yohmom (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that this is a case of me being lost because I am an outsider. English is not my native language and I have been in USA for only a couple of months in total, never in NC. You have convinced me that that is how the argument was formulated in the actual debate. I still find it obscure, but that is not a concern for this article. --Ettrig (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Jimmy for the most part.  Ettrig, maybe the language barrier is an issue, and a couple of American assumptions may be why there is confusion.  Most horse people in the USA are aware that horses were extinct in the Americas from the end of the Ice Age until reintroduced by the Conquistadors.  I think the point here is precisely the dilemma Jimmy outlined...Horses were not native to the barrier islands (and probably never were, even in the Ice Age, as horses don't live on barrier islands if they can help it! LOL!), and hence they do pose some ecological questions as an introduced species,  but they are kept for historic and cultural reasons.  For what it's worth, though (Jimmy) it's impossible for the Bankers to be the oldest NA breed, Columbus landed in the Caribbean in 1493 and Cortez had 16 horses with him when he landed in Mexico.  I'll grant you the possibility of the east coast, maybe, but there were Mustangs running around the Southwest 100 years earlier! LOL!  Montanabw(talk) 00:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird. I've found the same statement that they are "the oldest documented horse population in North America" in a couple of books today and even in a video documentary. One of the books then acknowledge Columbus, Cortes and even DeLeon brought horses first. Ugh. Probably some obscure use of the word population... --Yohmom (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vital?

message: Hmm. Should this article be named Banker (horse)? I've noticed that in books it's always listed as "Banker." The "horse" part really isn't attached like the American Quarter Horse... --Yohmom (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously suggesting that this article should be renamed "Banker", in the current economic climate? Can you even begin to imagine the abuse that would result? ;-) Perhaps you're thinking of a featured topic? Banker (horse), Banker (idiot), Banker (thief) ... --Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahahahaha, "Banker (thief)" made me laugh. FoodPuma 21:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yohmom, the horse articles are all over the place on this.  For linking, it is way easier to link Banker horse than Banker (horse)|Banker horse, if you get my drift.  We have [{Arabian horse]] and Morgan horse, but Holsteiner (horse), etc..  I say it doesn't itch, don't scratch it.  And, by the way, all, you forget "Banker (slimeball)"  LOL!  Montanabw(talk) 01:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yohmom, the parenthetical "(horse)" is used on many articles about individual horses and, unfortunately, also on horse anatomy articles and horse breed articles.  This can cause confusion.  For example, Chestnut (horse) now is a disambiguation page.  I would move this article to Banker (horse breed), and do it now, before it goes to FAC.  --Una Smith (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to agree with Montanabw on this one and say leave it as it is. The horse breeds are all over the place with regard to naming, and it's current form is easier to link. I can't think of any articles we have (although please point some out, Una, if I'm missing them) that end with "(horse breed)" and so changing its naming to this would be simply adding another layer of confusion to the pile. This is a discussion that needs to be held project wide, but hasn't been yet, so the article is hurting nothing by staying at "Banker horse" for now, and for the duration of the FAC, IMO. Dana boomer (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Leave it. I think I checked the holsteiner page to see how that one was listed and assumed that there was some sort of uniformity in the articles (haha). It's no big deal.--Yohmom (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, since it has come up, I think I will push the issue.  If the horses are known as Bankers, not Banker horses, then "Banker horse" is incorrect and some parenthetical disambiguation is needed because "Banker" refers to something else that arguably is the primary topic.  Change the page name, and refer to the animal throughout the article as Banker, the Banker, Bankers, etc.  Re what parenthetical to use, "(landrace)" may be more accurate;  see Landrace.  I'll be happy to fix all seven (!) incoming links from mainspace.  --Una Smith (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Una, I am going to formally ask that you DROP. THIS. NOW.  Pretty please.  With maple sugar on top.  Your personal obsession with disambiguation issues has disrupted articles across wikipedia from Weymouth to Tumbleweed.  And you know what happened to you on your Tumbleweed crusade.  This particular work is an article that is part of a high school student's class project and if you derail a legitimate article's run for FA and pick on a kid, just to pursue your personal agenda on what it should be named, I guarantee you that such will be viewed with considerable concern by the administrators of wikipedia and I will personally make absolutely certain that they are aware of this.  Montanabw(talk) 01:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and I'll be right behind you Montanabw. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

text:  I am not picking on anyone.  Cut out the ad hominems, please.  --Una Smith (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Una, please quit. We have no existing articles that end with "landrace" and to start moving articles to that now would just confuse the matter more. We have one article that ends with "horse breed" (that being the Salerno (horse breed)) and that's only because we have an individual horse named Salerno already taking up Salerno (horse). We have plenty of articles that are "name of breed + horse" when the breeds are not actually called that. See Friesian horse, Arabian horse, Marwari horse, Morgan horse, Shire horse, Standardbred horse and many others, all of which are known by their first name only. There is no problem with where the article is now, and if it were to be moved, it would be to Banker (horse), which I agree is unnecessary, due to the examples I just mentioned. Consensus has been shown by the editors here on this page that the current name is fine, so please abide by that, Una. Dana boomer (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dana, you made my point.  Surely somewhere, sometime, a racehorse has been named Banker and sooner or later the page name Banker (horse) will be wanted for an article about that racehorse.  --Una Smith (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

text: If those horses are known as Friesian horse, Arabian horse, Marwari horse, Morgan horse, Shire horse, Standardbred horse, then their page names are not inaccurate.  However, the primary contributor to this article says this article's page name is inaccurate.  Yohmom may not know it, but moving the article is easy: log in, click the move box at the top of the article page, and type the new name.  --Una Smith (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Una, I think you are deliberately missing my point. Those breeds I listed are known by their first name only - the Marwari, the Morgan, the Shire, etc. Therefore, having the breed as "Banker horse" is no different from having any of these other articles at their current title. Yohmom has said above that she was basically just asking and has no problem leaving the article as is. I think you are the only one trying to drag this issue out at the moment, and from the other comments here, I'm pretty sure a move request would get shot down in a quick hurry. Again, PLEASE drop it. Dana boomer (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

text: It has to go through WP:RM only if it is controversial.  If we can resolve this ourselves, it does not have to go through WP:RM. --Una Smith (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct IF there would be consensus. But when I read the above, there is anything but a consensus for the moment. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Una this is a one-person crusade on your part. There is zero consensus or support for your suggestions.  Let it go.  Montanabw(talk) 15:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banker (horse) ? 

message: Una, you just made MASSIVE edits to this article with NO consensus from anyone, not the lead editor who has been working on this article for months, not from the other FA reviewers who have been carefully crafting this article, sometimes word by word, for many weeks, not from anyone.  This is very poor wikiquette, sets a very bad example for the young people working on this project and violates any number of the principles that make wikipedia work.  I have reverted your work and I suggest you make no more contributions to this article at all.  If you have good ideas, discuss them here and the primary editors can add those that achieve consensus.  I see you are also disrupting the article of FoodPuma.  Is it your goal to disrupt these students' projects all across wikipedia?  I most sincerely want to assume good will and hope that is NOT your intent.  I cannot believe you are doing this here.  Leave things alone, please.  Montanabw(talk) 15:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop. NOW

message: The article currently states The callousities known as "chestnuts" are usually lacking on rear legs.  Lacking is a weasel word, and ambiguous in this context.   states:
I will revise the sentence in the article accordingly.  --Una Smith (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chestnuts on rear legs 

message: It may be wise to reconsider treating all Banker populations as a single breed.  That treatment has led to mashing together studies of separate populations that may not be related.  Some of the populations are separated by wide cuts, and where the cuts are not wide they are notorious for rip tides.  Corolla (Bodie Island?) horses have been connected with Spanish colonial horses:  are the others equally connected?  Shackleford Banks horses are the ones without chestnuts on their hind legs:  that is quite unusual, but is it true also for the Rachel Carson horses, or for the others?  --Una Smith (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found nothing that would suggest that they are not a single breed. Basic definitions describe them as "horses inhabiting the Outer Banks of North Carolina." The HOA report points out more than the obvious similarities between Shackleford and Corolla. Shackleford has yet to be linked by genetic testing (that I know of);however, they exhibit enough of the same traits so that people much smarter than I consider them similar to lump them under the same term. There has been mixing between the Shackleford and Ocracoke herds so they are linked. Corolla links to Shackleford which links to Ocracoke, thus Corolla links to Ocracoke? The issue of the RC horses has already been addressed. I have no idea what rip tides have to do with anything maybe this clarified a bit?--Yohmom (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics 

message: So I have been trying to satisfy most of the suggestions made the in latest PR and I keep finding myself in the same few ruts.
* Having to not-use/use serial commas consistently is killing what few brain cells I have left. I just hacked away at this one and have been staring at the the article so much that I am no longer processing what is actually on the page. Could someone make sure that I didn't delete necessary commas and that the rest of the serials are finally gone? 
* Same thing for the numbers. I think they are spelled out where appropriate (although I'm not too sure what to do with ranges), but I'd like a second pair of eyes before throwing up a check.
* Labeling the horse parts in a photo--is this really needed? 
* Domesticated Banker horses/(horses)/(horse breed)/(land race)/(feral horse): I have one sentence on what the breed is "used for" but no real place to put it. It seems pretty random everywhere I try to stick it. Any ideas?
...and a few other items that are marked as not done. Could a get a second opinion on these? Please? --Yohmom (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Will comment at the not dones also.  My eyes are so bad (note how often I mess up (, { , and [ getting middle-aged really sucks!  Don't get old!  LOL!) and thus the numbers and the serial comma thing is all yours! (and here I thought Wiki MOS was the other way around, when did that one change?  Oh well).  No, there is no need to label horse parts in a photo.  Wikilinking should do the job.  Equine anatomy is always a handy link.   As for the naming, that was a sidetracking thing, don't let it distract you.  The name is fine.  There's a bigger spat over all this at wikiproject disambiguation that, until resolved, need not be brought into this article, IMHO.   If there is a "what they are used for" and it's one sentence long, I'd skip it.  If you had a paragraph on how they do in captivity (I think there is such a paragraph in Chincoteague pony) and what sort of things that the owners of adopted animals do with them, that would be charming, but also would need to be footnoted and all that.  And, frankly, if it's something like, "they can be tamed and trained as nice trail horses," well, naah.  Not needed.  At least in my humble and lovable (as always) opinion.  Montanabw(talk) 06:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I also thought the labeling of a picture was a little overzealous. At this point, I find the naming thing a bit comical (Oh the possibilities!) and my philosophy on that is: if I ignore it, it will go away. My "uses" section for the Banker would be even shorter than the Chincoteague's, if you could imagine how awkward that would look...I should probably get working on the lead...*groan*.--Yohmom (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loose ends 

message: I think this passage Despite the move, about 150 people from the original population of 600 survived the first two months. is obscure (again?!). Part of it could be rephrased 150 people survived the first two months despite the move. This means the survival of the first two months at the new place is unexpected. It further means that the fact that they moved the way they did makes us expect that they should not survive in the new place. But why would the move make them unfit to survive? I guessed that the move in itself changed their condition in a way that made them unfit for survival. That alternative was rejected. Possibly the move made them end up in a place where it is difficult to survive. I find that I don't know and cannot guess. The despite remains enigmatic. The reader needs more hints. --Ettrig (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The first settlement was problematic. Therefore they relocated. But the new place was also dissatisfactory. So after two months in the second location, 3/4 had died there. The remainder then moved again. Is this how it was? Despite the move only 150 survived? --Ettrig (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that was an interesting story. --Ettrig (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  One that makes me glad that I wasn't born as a 16th century colonist. When I went back to finish it I think I pretty much chunked the above sentence and started from a blank word document. Then Malleus rearranged the new stuff to make it sparkle and shine. :) Good now? --Yohmom (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't I make myself clear.  ;-)  --Ettrig (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survived despite the move

message: There were two expeditions, one run by LVA, one by RG. The expeditions run by LVA or RG can be misinterpreded as both were run by LVA or both were run by RG, but the choice of which one actually did it is left open. If we choose and it can be misinterpreted as both were run by LVA and RG in cooperation. Maybe something like ...were left behind by an exploratory expedition headed by LVA or one by RG.. --Ettrig (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: and or or