Template talk:Horse topics

message: Do you object if we replace the photo of the Quagga with a color photo of a horse?  Montanabw(talk) 23:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Which photo

message: This navbox is very big. In many cases it will take up more space than the actual text of the respective article. It is common practise to set such huge boxes to collapse by default. I tried to do so but was reverted without a comment. Am I really the only one who thinks that it is too imposing? A navbox should support articles, not dominate them. --Latebird (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it depends on its purpose.  It isn't a deep moral issue with me, but in this case any articles that it dominates probably deserve to be smacked because they need to be expanded anyway. (LOL!)  Can you point to the WP page that outlines the standards, though?  Here I think there is a case to be made for "Ignore all rules."  It's worth a chat, at least.  My reason is that the horse articles have a lot of problems with navigation and cross-linking, the box is an attempt to make it easier (and to me, being at the bottom of the page, it is less dominating than those extensive sidebars seen in some other topics.  The sidebars, such as those here don't collapse, it seems, and I find them more distracting, personally.) I think we are sitting at well over 1000 horse articles (I have about 800 on my watchlist, and that is after I cleaned it out) and we have noticed a lot of orphaned stubs get created because people don't know what's out there.  (The project is now just tagging everything, organizing and recategorization is yet another challenge). A lot of new users don't get it about expanding the box, a lot of new users and kids hit the horse articles (at least if the vandalism is any indication) and in the case of a lot of stubs, it is a useful navigational tool.  I guess I don't care a lot either way, I think if expanded it will draw more new users to navigate.  And the picture of the horse is just lovely! (grin) JMHO. Montanabw(talk) 20:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I only just noticed your reply, sorry. Your points are valid, of course, and it's not the largest box I've seen yet. A possible other solution for small screen users might be to remove the image. I don't quite see the point of images in navbars anyway, but that's yet another discussion. In this case, on a small screen, the image takes almost one third of the width, which huge empty spaces above and below. Removing it would roughly cut the height of the box by half. Try to reduce the width of your browser window to see the effect. Adding line breaks to some of the labels on the left would result in another size reduction. --Latebird (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  huge box, please collapse by default 

message: I just revised the template.  Here's what I did and why.  First, I removed links to the categories.  I'm not sure if it is official policy or not, but I rarely see links from the main article namespace to other namespaces.  The only common exceptions are usually links at the bottom of the template with one link to the main category, and one link to the portal.  Second, I removed the species list.  I just created a new template, , which appears on all of the species pages and ties them all together...so keeping them here would be duplication.  Third, I combined breeds, hybrids, and extinct species on one line to conserve space.  Finally, I saved additional space by moving some of the articles to the group name (on the left side, rather than the right) and changing some of the links by removing the word horses (where it is obvious and not needed).
:On another note, I'm not sure you should be putting this template on all of the articles within the WikiProject.  Usually, a template is only placed on an article if the article appears on the template.  So all of the breeds and types of horses articles probably should not have this template.  I'd think a new template for horse breeds (grouped by common characteristics, if possible), would be a better option.  Having multiple, specific templates would probably be best for easing navigation of the project anyway.  Many focused templates are usually better than one gigantic template.  --Scott Alter 08:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What you did works, but oh, my god NO we must not try to make a horse breeds template, oh the fights over how to categorize them- it gives me a headache just to think about it.  (:clutching head, writhing in pain on floor:) The fight over which breeds are horses and which are ponies alone is periodically intense.  Also, many breeds can fit in multiple categories (the Thoroughbred, for example, is both a race horse and a sport horse).  No, best to just refer people to the main list and let it go!  As for putting the template only on some articles, hmm. I guess when I see them in other articles I think of them as a navigation tool, the problem, if you happened to have surfed the categories, is that there are probably over 2000 horse articles (more yet if you count all the race horse biographies at WikiProject Horse Racing, which is why we aren't trying to combine with them!) and the categories themselves are a real mess -- once the assessment tags go up, "fumigating" the categories is probably the next push.  (Just as an example, both Equestrianism and Equestrian Sports are categories, that's illogical)  Until we have a real clear hierarchy of categories, more specific templates probably need to wait.  Montanabw(talk) 05:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Montana on the no horse breeds template. Oh, gods above, I would not want to deal with that. Even trying for alphabetical would get you in trouble... because everyone would try to add "American" to the front of their breed article.... The paint/appy people would scream about being classified as color breeds ... the palomino people would too, the pony breeds would insist they are horses or vice versa, the Arabian folks would insist on being at the front, etc. etc. It would be a nightmare. Where would you draw the line? I think we have what... 150 breed articles on Wikipedia now? Talk about large template! As for the collapsable template, I'm in favor. I don't like templates, honestly, but that's me. I prefer bottom to sidebars. If we have them, I prefer they collapse by default so I don't have deal with them that much. If you know how to make them always collapse, can I borrow you for a couple of bishop ones? Ealdgyth | Talk 05:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Latebird's edit of this template made it collapse, if you check his version for the syntax.  I kind of like ours expanded for navigation purposes, and I think it's kind of pretty, but it isn't a moral issue.  Montanabw(talk) 07:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision of Template

message: * Keep
#Keep.  Montanabw(talk) 05:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The poll concerns the image on :Template:Equidae, not the project banner on this talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the image. Cute is not good reason to keep it, and use of that space for navigational links is a good reason to remove it. --Una Smith (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll:  keep or delete images from this navbox 

message: Err.. this isn't a navigational box, it's a project banner for use on the talk pages. So, yeah, the whole template serves no navigational purpose. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The poll concerns the image on :Template:Equidae, not the project banner on this talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the image. Cute is not good reason to keep it, and use of that space for navigational links is a good reason to remove it. --Una Smith (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: With the recent, and much needed, split of Equidae into articles about Equidae the family and Equus it would seem to be prudent to migrate this template.  I would propose moving this template to Template:Equus as ALL of the content of the template relates specifically to the modern genus only and, for a large pert, to domesticated Horses.   A link could be added to link to the family page in the "Evolution and history" section but to fully encompass the Family the template should incorporate links to all the genera, plus the family page and Evolution of the horse, preferably clarifying hte name "Breeds and types" to something more suitable such as "species and breeds", clarifying that Zebras and Wild asses are not just breeds of the modern domestic horse.--Kevmin (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: True this really would work best if renamed something along the lines of Template:Equestrianism, as the is the overriding theme of the template content now.--Kevmin (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about :Template:Equine?  --Una Smith (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The thing is the template sill only covers Extant and very recently extinct members of the genus Equus, with heavy empasis on Equestrianism; The entire "Equestrianism and sport" and "Evolution and history" excluding the link in the title to "Evolution of the horse", the "Equine science and management" is over half domestic horse oriented. This leaves the "Breeds and types" section, which is misnamed to begin with.  As I already stated it should be Species and breeds or a smiler name to reflect that Zebras and Wild asses are not just breeds of the modern domestic horse.  and the included extinct species are limited to modern extinctions, thus not even covering the entire Equus genus.  I moved the "Yukon wild ass" page to Equus lambei as this appers to be a created name to market a Pleistocene Animal to tourists. and the other extinct Equus taxa, Equus simplicidens and Equus scotti are not listed on the template.  Regarding the use of hte template as a wikiprojet banner, this is the only instance I have come cross of a template also bening claimed as a banner for the project.  As the template does not actually even link to the project I dont this qualifies as a banner, most projects has a small icon that is placed under the taxobox for this purpose.--Kevmin (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I expanded the template to include slightly more Equidae-relevant links, and also put the most relevant sections first.  Still more needs to be added.  Basically, this is one navbox trying to cover two (or more) distinct topics.  There is a place in Wikipedia for a navbox to Equidae, but such a navbox should not include much of the stuff now included.  --Una Smith (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing them, all are linked -- or should be -- from the new Equidae article.  Next thing you know we will have to add all 350 articles from the list of horse breeds, too.
How about we simply remove the non-Equidae, horse-specific content to Template:Horse? --Una Smith (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

text: considering the mass of the content that would be removed, would Template:Equestrianism be suitable? but yes a split would seem to be in order to remove the biology from the husbandry as it were.--Kevmin (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because many of the horse management articles also cover mules and donkeys too.  And "Equestrianism" here on wiki refers to Horsemanship, not husbandry.  I don't know if the Dog navbox also links to articles on obedience classes, but it's a similar principle.  Montanabw(talk) 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Template:Equine would cover mules and donkeys.  And all other extant members of Equus.  --Una Smith (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I really dislike "-ism";  Equestrianism violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), apparently to avoid a non-problem:  parenthetical disambiguation.  It probably should have been named Equestrian (horseman) or something like that.  I would prefer Template:Equestrian or Template:Horse husbandry.  --Una Smith (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just leave it alone.  This is a general purpose navbox to get people to the main articles for various subtopics.  We can start with links to Equidae and Equus (genus), call it template Equus or Equidae, I no longer care which, and leave it alone.  This is not a huge issue.  And there was NO consensus to remove the photo, so I am restoring it.  At present, I am very busy and may not get onto Wikipedia more often than every other day, so I would appreciate if people would wait and avoid a "false consensus" on this template.  Montanabw(talk) 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually a taxonomic navbox provides navigation among taxa, not a lot of other stuff, and I see no reason why this one should be an exception.  Please give one. --Una Smith (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Re the photo, Montanabw, if you can offer a good reason ("cute" is not a good reason), I will be pleased to have a photo in the navbox.  But let's at least use one that is not a modern horse;  use a photo that makes the important but often overlooked point that most Equidae are not horses.  --Una Smith (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed rename

message: Perhaps we might move the contents of the nav box as it existed before Kevin and Una's work, to another name, thus effectively splitting the "horse-only" template off from the "taxon" template, and pleasing both parties? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly what Kevmin and I have been discussing.  Which target do you prefer, Ealdgyth?  --Una Smith (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Equestrian or plain Horse works. Might get more discussion going before we do a bunch of work though. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Great minds at the same time.  I would be OK with the restoration proposed by Ealdgyth, but suggest Equine or Equus, as many of the articles also cover donkeys and mules (and occasionally other members of Equus genus)  Ealdgyth, so that I do not violate 3 RR, could you do me the honor of restoring the last version I edited, which reflects the new version of Equus (genus)? Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 01:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Montanabw, please read the prior talk.  Kevmin and I have been discussing for days now how to split out the non-taxonomic stuff.  --Una Smith (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Good for you, Ealdgyth.  Tag teaming is not good.  --Una Smith (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't do it because of that, I did it because it won't help the discussion. Frankly, I think you were a bit off when you reverted Montana's revert. The cycle is BRD, not BRR, but as long as we got to the D part, I really don't care. You can't assume that everyone checks Wikipedia every day or every hour, so sometimes it'll take someone a few days to notice changes they don't agree with and revert those. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ealdgyth, surely you do not condone tag teaming? --Una Smith (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where do you get that from what I said? No, I do not condone tag teaming. Now, can we discuss the issue on the talk page, and remember that we need more than a day or so for that discussion? Like I said above, not everyone edits Wikipedia every day, so you need to allow more time for consensus to emerge, especially when at least one person has expressed concerns. I think I made my position clear, lets hear from some others over the next few days. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

text: What is the hurry? I do not see the big need to fix this NOW. Wait, get some other folks involved, let consensus settle. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did I say "fix this NOW"?  I have been waiting for days already for the usual suspects to weigh in.  Weighing in calmly would be nice, but whatever, the end result will be the same.  --Una Smith (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

text:  I'm sorry if I misunderstood your statement, it seemed to me that you were wanting to do the copy soon. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise 

message: Hi Scott! Thanks for your comments.  OK all, here is where I am at.  Everyone else can comment accordingly.  Basically, WPEQ is so huge that some kind of navbox is needed, at least to direct people to the main article for each of the main categories.  Templete equidae was being used in this fashion. It is not only on 350 horse breed articles, it is also in all of the articles linked to the stable version as well as some others.   If that's not the right thing to do with a family or genus template, I can live with trying to create a new one that does the same thing and letting Equidae move to taxonomy, as long as we at least keep a link to Horse (LOL!)  Also, I DID think that the perissodactyla template WAS covering all the taxonomy stuff, BTW.  But as for the horse breeds issue, we have List of horse breeds to help people navigate and link to all of the articles on both breeds, types, extinct breeds, etc...It's too big for a navbox, the navboxes can just have a link to the list. But bottom line is that we DO need a general navbox, and that is what matters to me.  A taxonomy navbox is useless to help a person get from Equestrianism to Horse management, for example.  Montanabw(talk) 16:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Solutions? To our own corners?

message: OK, I just told everyone that I was going to be offline for a couple days so now we have a real mess.  I am able to live with the move of the "horsey" template to Template Equine, but no, we can't remove it from every horse breed article, it was put into every one of them for a reason--to improve navigation -- the common link is list of horse breeds (as 350 breeds will not fit into a template very well).  They were removed without consensus or discussion.  Now we also have two equidae taxonomy templates on top of the page move, plus a category move request (Equid to Equine) done with no discussion at WPEQ or here.  Scott and Kevmin, do as you see fit with other templates, but can we now leave this one alone?  Enough damage has been done.  Montanabw(talk) 04:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Equid was moved to :Category:Equidae after due notice on the category page and a 5-day period for discussion.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Montanabw wants me to put a navbox (she doesn't say which one) or a link to List of horse breeds on all the hundreds of articles from which I just removed .  Here is her request.  What do others think?  After skimming the hundreds of horse breed articles, what I think is this:  they need better categorizing.  I prefer categories to a list because a breed can be listed in any and all relevant categories:  for example, both a pony breeds category and a horse breeds category, a color category and a coat pattern category, extinct breeds, North American breeds, African breeds, etc.  A list is far too rigid.  Also, I would not use List of horse breeds for navigation because that page appears to have a problem of synthesis.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some people prefer categories, some people prefer lists. The wise approach is to have both, when possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 1)  I actually don't object to the actual category move, except that it was done absent notice to those concerned. Category change was proposed and completed with no notice to any interested parties at WPEQ.  Few people has the time to watchlist all these various management articles that have hundreds of hits per day. It was poor wikiquette.  Especially at WPEQ where there are numerous interested editors.  Montanabw(talk) 06:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

text: 2)  As for the list link and template, We usually had both in these articles.  And Una, you know darn well which one we are talking about.  You moved the template that was Equidae to Equine, and obviously, the renamed template (Template Equine) is the one we are talking about.   I manually added that navbox when it was created to all the horse breed articles, well over a year ago when WPEQ was doing its massive cleaning and tagging of horse articles when the project was created.  Now the navbox has now been removed by Una from every horse breed article that had it.  There was NO consensus and in fact no discussion at all other than the above comment here.  Such a massive change should give people some time to comment before changing it.  Like a week.  So, I am going to ask, one more time, pretty please with maple sugar on top, that Una fix this mess she created and replace the navbox in the form that was on all the horse breed articles.  i.e. the navbox now called Template Equine.  And also, per the "everyone to their corners" comment above, leave the content alone until there is consensus.   Montanabw(talk) 06:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out that, at the outset of my move proposal, I did post a notice with link on the Wikiproject Equine page.  Thus all those concerned have had notice that there is discussion happening.  That they have chosen NOT to participate is not grounds to not move forward with this process of restructuring.  I vote for the removal of the articles which are not included in the navbox, agreeing with the statements of Scottalter and Una that only those articles on the template should have the template,  this is how the other nav templates operate. Why the exception here?  And will point out this is not the first time this change was asked for.  Again Montanabw I am politely suggesting that you may need to step back from this and ask yourself if you are displaying ownership of this template.  Yes you helped form it into what it was.  But it seems the community, those that have shown interest, think it is time to restructure.  The only arguments you have offered at this point, in many ways boil down to, I like it this way, so leave it. --Kevmin (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While we were discussing it here, Montanabw reverted nearly alla lot of my 300+ edits.  I think that is unacceptable.  --Una Smith (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Whoa. Kevmin, you posted a comment that there was discussion on the naming of the template, not a discussion on whether the template should be removed from all of these articles. I'm agreeing with Montanabw that this template is useful on the individual horse breeds articles. This is because (as has been stated before) it is impractical to have a template that lists all 300+ horse breeds, and there's no practical way to categorize them even if you did want a huge template. This template links readers to our main list of horse breeds, as well as the other major equine articles in WP that they may or may not be interested in. It's at the bottom of the page, it's collapsable, and it's not hurting anything - why remove it? Dana boomer (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The removal of tags for this template from the articles was discussed, right here on this talk page, by several editors.  And WPEQ was alerted to the discussion in a timely manner. --Una Smith (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree, I could do entirely without . --Una Smith (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Good god, what a mess

message: How did we get from this nice compact "Evolution and history" in this version  to the rambling/sprawling version we have today ? This reorganization and expansion happened in just the last few months, with no discussion.
There are a lot of templates that could have been co-opted to put this into, but this template seemed to be a nice overview of EQUUS. It has become a "throw everything about horses in here", which is not what it seems to have been created for. For example, the "mythology section"... I don't think this belongs in here. And someone is creating CONTEMPORARY articles about the horse industry in each country and it has been shoehorned into the "evolution and history" section, where it doesn't belong.
Either create a new subsection for these contemporary "by country" articles, or start a new template specifically for that. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "someone is creating CONTEMPORARY articles about the horse industry" .. that is not true. These articles about horse histories, the section is called "Evolution and history" not just evolution. Even in what you call "compact" version, it included Horses in the United States but the moment you start adding Togo and Sudan it suddenly becomes CONTEMPORARY! FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:   The USA article is a history article, and yes about the evolution of the horse on the North American continent. And it wasn't just Sudan and Toga that were added, but also Botswana, Cameroon, Cuba, Ethiopia, Greece, Iran, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Slovenia. And those are not history/evolution articles for Equus (genus), but mainly coverage of the contemporary horse industry in those countries. So next time you reactively respond to someone's good faith thread which is intended to help improve the encyclopedia, at least look at the links before you start typing your outrage. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 11:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sudan article is history article too. I am not sure what are you taking about. Please leave good faith alone especially after yoir first message FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

text: I see you put US history article. I am not sure if this match your complaint but I have no issues with what you did. Cheers FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unchecked expansion