Talk:List of horse breeds

Capitalisation

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No... Richard New Forest (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

RCMP

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)

No, it's not a breed. They ride horses of whatever breed suits the position. Dana boomer (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sport horses, warmbloods, and new breeds with open stud books

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)

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)

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. @Montanabw: are you up to joining this discussion?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Crossbreds and types

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)

On first glance, I like the new separation/distinction.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Types or 'lines' of Arabian horses - Egyptian Arabian

What I see is that the article starts out "The Egyptian Arabian is a line of the Arabian horse", therefore not a breed.

@Justlettersandnumbers: in your recent edit where you re-include the removed Egyptian Arabian (horse), you write except that, according to the article, it is ...

Now I wouldn't wholly rely on a translated-from-French article by a non-native English speaker who got paid to translate this article from French wiki and left it needing some serious cleanup, then they added their new article to this List of horse breeds in opposition to the notation telling users it is not a breed and to not add it.

But I'm willing to hear you out. Write here why you think Egyptian Arabian (horse) is a breed and warrants being here in the list.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Grorp, see the sections on selection and genetics. The article needs some serious work, or perhaps to be merged to a List of Arab horse breeds, but it asserts and supports its status as a breed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

JLAN, neither Egyptian nor Polish “Arabians” are separate breeds. (I redirected both) They are bloodline groups, and in the modern world, there has been so much intermixing of lines (the Russians and Poles have imported from Egypt, the Egyptians revitalized their lines with Crabbet horses from England, etc) the distinctions are mostly a marketing ploy these days. The registries often have articles on their websites discussing these different groups, but they don’t maintain separate areas for recording them, nor does WAHO. The one unique breed derived from Arabs with special status is the Shagya Arabian (long story, see the article), all the rest just have fan clubs. Montanabw^(talk) 15:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I just boldly blanked and redirected that completely useless content fork. Egyptian bloodlines are not a separate breed or even a type, they are a bloodline group. To the extent they need any coverage, it’s already in Arabian horse, a Ga-class article Ealdgyth and I have maintained for years… and to which I redirected. That user who created it is, I think, a paid editor who is translating every article in French wiki that doesn’t have a corresponding article in en.wiki. She has no idea what she’s talking about and her work is loaded with these mistranslations pf horse terms.. I have previously had to deal with multiple other of her articles on assorted horse topics. Fr wiki has a different consensus about having separate articles for every nuance. That’s their consensus, not ours. Thanks for alerting me to that junk. I think I also had to blank and redirect other articles on other Arabian bloodlines. Ping me at my talkpage if you find more, if there’s content worth salvaging prior to a redirect, I’ll find it. Montanabw^(talk) 14:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow. Good to know (about the Arabians).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that editor is in a group of paid editors, WP:WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKA. From what I've read, OKA is all about getting a fast translation done, bypassing AfC process by creating articles directly, and then leaving it for others to clean up the resulting articles... er... messes. I am thoroughly frustrated with the poor quality of their work, unwillingness (or inability) to improve the quality of their work over time, or to go back and correct their recent work when shortcomings are pointed out on talk pages with links to applicable Wikipedia guideline pages. In other words, informal mentoring hasn't seemed to make any progress. If they were made to send all these new translations through AfC (despite their whining about how long that takes) it would result in a better quality of article and I'm sure they would learn to clean up their act. Is there any way we can force them to run their newly-translated horse articles through AfC?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)