Talk:Suffolk Punch

message: I'm not sure about that; my great uncle was a well known breeder between around 1920 and the commercial end around 1940ish? and somewhere we still have all the breed society yearbooks from this period. I'll look into this. Tom 21:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: they seldom had any to sell...

message: Is this article a case for translation?  It's about a breed with very strong ties to England, and to my (British) eye it looks very odd to have an article about a native British horse written with "draft", "easy keeper" etc.  No ax(e) to grind – generally I'd be perfectly happy to stick with whichever version is established – and I'd expect an article on, say, Quarter Horse to be in American.  See WP:ENGVAR for WP guidance.  I'd be happy to do the hono(u)rs if others agree.  Richard New Forest (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's Dana's call as far as I am concerned.  No biggie to me either way. You do have a point.  By the way, do you have any material you can add?  Montanabw(talk) 22:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine with me if you want to change it.  No-one else really seemed to care about this article when I was re-writing it, so I wrote it in the English which is the most comfortable to me, which happens to be American English.  To be honest, I'm Americanized enough that I could't see what spellings should be British if you had a gun to my head, so if you want to change it to British spelling go ahead, but be warned that, although I won't change it back, I won't be of any help getting it that way! You probably are right, though, that a breed that is as British as this one should probably be in the British spelling. Dana boomer (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, will do – I'll check a couple of books too and see if I can find anything which (that...) ought to go in.  Richard New Forest (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Oh, yeah, definitely British English I'd say. It's a pain for us Yank editors, but it really is best. (I have to do it all the time with bishops... I'm almost to the point I type "favour" instead of "favor" now...) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: British English?

message: Found a Flickr tool that allowed me to upload a bunch of stuff from Flickr to Commons.  You may see some things you want to use that are better than the image that's there so far.  See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Suffolk_Punch  for the latest. (Still adding as I write this).  Montanabw(talk) 23:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding images 

message: OK, most of my initial concerns have been addressed.  So what else do we need before going to the GA gauntlet?  My thoughts:
*Fix Richard's ref to Hall so it's consistent with the other refs.
*Review lead to be sure everything there is referenced elsewhere in the article, etc.
*Wee bit of expansion on when Suffolks came to USA and when USA Suffolk society formed, seeing as how we mention when it temporarily went defunct
*If the UK Suffolk breed registry is the oldest English breed society, (thus impliedly predating the Jockey Club??)  when did it form?  (Not clear from text, which mentions Britannica and individual horses only)  Richard, can you help us with that one??
*Why was the bit on "heavy clay soils" tossed, given that it was referenced?  (Richard, was Dana's source wrong on this?  Certainly possible, but...) 
I may think of more later. That's all for now. Montanabw(talk) 22:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some tidbits in one of my books on historic and endangered livestock breeds, that I'll try to add in tomorrow. My eyes are shot from a day of wikignome work on bishops. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, and technically, the British Jockey Club isn't a breed registry. Weatherford's owns the General Stud Book, (dating to 1790s) and I think the JC is around then, but I'm not sure that strictly speaking, either of those entities is a "breed registry"... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA pre-review 

message: * Suggest sourcing the colors allowed to the Society itself. (I've back up the spelling with a book cite)
* Dohner has a section that says "In days past, breeders tested the heart and strength of the Suffolk by hitching the horse to a tree trunk or another nearly immovable object. The good horse wanted to work and gave the pull its all. The winner of the contest was determined by the number of times the horse or horses made a hard fought attempt, sometimes getting down on their knees." (Dohner, p. 350)
* Dohner suggests the height ranges as mares 16.1 or 16.2, stalions up to a whole hand taller. (p. 350)
* Dohner suggests that at one point, the feet were considered too small and so the shows started offering classes and prizes for the "best feet" (p. 350)
* I threw in the date of first imports to Canada, might look up if they have their own Stud Book and registry? 
* Dohner says that in the 1970s and early 1980s some outcrossing in the American registry took place to Belgians, but only the fillies of the crosses were allowed to be registered. (p. 351-352)
* Dohner also says that as of its writing the British Society did not accept North American bloodlines. (p. 352) Also that it's the rarest horse breed in England at that time. (p. 352).
I think I'm done at this point. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions from Ealdgyth 

message: Putting this here in case it wants to be integrated into the body...
::The Suffolk Punch bears a strong resemblance to the old Jutland horse, and may owe that to the Viking horses brought over in the early Middle Ages, when parts of England were settled by Danish settlers, whose horses may have contributed to the native horses. Other influences may have been Dutch and Flemish horses brought over by contractors working on dykes and land reclamation in the 16th and 17th centuries in Broadland district.Dohner Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry Breeds p. 349-352
Some more from this work will be worked in. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: Dana boomer asked me to review the images in this article before its FA nomination.
*:File:Suffolk Plow Team.jpg - This image has no description.
*:File:Suffolk horses ploughing.jpg - This image has no description.
Otherwise, all of the Flickr licenses check out. Awadewit (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  Thank you very much! Dana boomer (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're very welcome! Awadewit (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image review 

message: I've done a sweep to make sure all is in UK English (as requested by Montana).  The quotes remain in US English.  While I'm of the opinion their spellings should be changed as well for the sake of consistency (spelling doesn't change the sense of the quote), MOS prefers original spellings to be kept.  These quotes seem to be from US sources. Gwinva (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Awww, darn :) I'd just gone searching through MOS to find the answer to your question, and here you beat me to it!  FYI for anyone else who's interested, the info can be found at Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Consistency_within_articles. Thank you for checking through the article, though! Dana boomer (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK English 

message: Hi Dana, Tagged as "dubious" the claim that the Suffolk Punch has the oldest breed registry-- in UK I'll buy and maybe if one single organization I'll buy, but the Andalusian has pedigree data tracing to the 13th century or so.   I liked the "16th century" phrasing better. If that is an accurate date, I'll grant older than the TB stud book, but not the whole planet (grin).  I can be convinced otherwise, however... Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't know what the real story is.  First, Ryder-Davies has been wrong on a couple of other things, so I'm not sure how much to trust him since he's the only one I can find that claims this.  Second, I think the catch might be in the wording.  Either "written" or "unbroken" (or the fact that he may only mean in England) can trip other registries up - Arabian pedigrees, if I understand it right, were mostly oral, and there are other registries that have gaps in them. That's my thinking.  I've removed it for now, we can put it back in if someone finds a backup source for it.  As for the 16th century wording, it was pointed out in the Peer Review that we said they were created in the 16th century in two different spots, which is repetitive for a lead that short, so I'm not going to put it back exactly the same way I had it. Dana boomer (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Oldest" claim 

message: Is there anything else that I'm completely missing that needs to be done before this article goes to FA? Please feel free to smack me upside the head if you think I'm moving too fast... Dana boomer (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Might ask User talk:Malleus Fatuorum to look at the prose real quick. Prose will eat you alive at FA. (grins). Otherwise, I'll check it in the morning again for sources and you're probably good to go. (I just took some sinus pills, so you don't want me checking sources right now.. way too spacey). Ealdgyth - Talk 00:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just dropped a note for Malleus, and now I'm going to go amuse myself elsewhere for a while. I'll look forward to your final source check in the morning. Dana boomer (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So exhausted by all the HIW stuff that I'm not going to be much help here.  Even the work on Paso Fino stuff is suffering. Apologies in advance, though I am willing to watch for anything that needs additional defense beyond Dana.  Stick to your guns, don't feel you have to make every change someone suggests, consider them each on their merits. (grin). Montanabw(talk) 02:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

text:  Sources look good. Like how you got the Henry quote through OSU. (grins). Just a prose check or three. Only thing you might want to check is your linking, make sure you're not doing too much of it. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much, Malleus! You have indeed improved the prose, which will be very helpful in our FAC run.  I'll probably drop the article in tomorrow morning, unless anyone objects before then. As for the bottleneck comment, I'll keep it in mind, and see what happens at FAC. Thanks especially for catching all of the Brit/American English differences - those are one of my weak points and I would never have seen them :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick question, Dana.  Isn't there some wikirule about no footnotes in the lead?  You do have a couple.  They are appropriate sources, but just wondering about that footnote in the lead rule.  I made a few minor copyedits, the biggest of which was to rearrange the postwar history paragraph a bit and a lesser change to move one sentence from one paragraph to another.  I hope this article does well!  Good luck!  Montanabw(talk) 07:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  controversial information in the lead can be footnoted, or anything likely to be challenged.Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

text: And actually, things just cleared up, so I'm back to almost full capacity, and nominating the article immediately.  Let's cross our fingers... :) Dana boomer (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, grats on it. Honestly, I took one look at the article and thought “Wow, this is short for FA” then remembered it’s about a single breed of horse…Duh!--Frank Fontaine (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA? 

message: Just thought I'd mention that the horse on the crest of Ipswich Town F.C. is a Suffolk Punch. Might be something to work in, a source should be easy enough to find and is prob in that article already. - JVG (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolism 

message: Temporarily questioning the following new addition: "A detailed genetic study shows that the Suffolk Punch is closely genetically grouped not only with the Fell and Dales British ponies, but also with the European Haflinger." 
:Why does this matter?  Just curious.  Were there other breeds close?  Given we have an FA that appeared on the main page, trying to sort out its significance. Montanabw(talk) 18:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetics 

message: Can someone who has the book check the facts: 
:Although it is commonly (and mistakenly) thought that this was the first horse of the breed, by the 1760s, all other male lines of the breed had died out, resulting in a genetic bottleneck. Another bottleneck occurred in the late 18th century.[13]
The point here is that 1760 equates with the second half (late) 18th century.  Does the writer here mean "late 19th century"  1.e. the late 1800s?  Or are the two sentences referring to the same date, and the second editor hasn't picked up on that fact?
Amandajm (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, good question. The source for that is a book from my local library, and I will try to pick it up tomorrow and double check to make sure this is worded correctly. Just as a note though, it is possible that there were two genetic bottlenecks in the last half of the century, one in the 1760s and one in, say, the late 1790s, which would make it over 30 years apart. However, this is just speculation, as it has been a few years since I read the source material, and so, as I said, I will re-acquire the source to check. Dana boomer (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The book is currently checked out from the library, so I can't check at this time. I'll keep an eye on its status and reply here as soon as I have anything to report. Dana boomer (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix needed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Suffolk Punch. 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/20140407073803/http://www.eaap.org/docs/Publications/eaap116%20-%20553687176K.pdf to http://www.eaap.org/docs/Publications/eaap116%20-%20553687176K.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) 19:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Suffolk Punch. 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/20090203133226/http://www.suffolkhorsesociety.org.uk/stallion-list/ to http://www.suffolkhorsesociety.org.uk/stallion-list/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071209142622/http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/horses/suffolk/index.htm to http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/horses/suffolk/index.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.imh.org/Suffolk-Punch.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509084601/http://www.suffolkpunch.com/info/brochure.html to http://www.suffolkpunch.com/info/brochure.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211134658/http://www.itfc.co.uk/page/ClubHistory/0%2C%2C10272~345822%2C00.html to http://www.itfc.co.uk/page/ClubHistory/0%2C%2C10272~345822%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416171412/http://www.suffolkpunchtrust.org/index.asp to http://www.suffolkpunchtrust.org/index.asp
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, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified