Talk:Forest horse

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Equine

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles

Untitled

entirely postulated for now but is termed here Warmblood subspecies and details given of two possible subspecies classifications Equus ferus silvaticus and Equus ferus germanicus. so having in breeds rather than subspecies is hardly going by the articles content

This is NOT a subspecies, people once thought it was but it's not. The article needs some updating, but that's not the problem for categorization. Can you please leave things alone when you don't know what you're doing? Montanabw^(talk) 18:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

refernces added for the subspecies stuff Nirame (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they aren't reliable and they are in fact, wrong. Breed promotion sites tend to want to claim that their breed is the most ancient and such. But this theory has been disproven. Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well all that is then needed is the referenced material saying otherwise but the article previously was really weighted in the other way and certainly then supported being listed differently.Nirame (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see what wiki says about what it is concerned with in right or wrong verses verifiable. only now is there several references for the point of view you shareNirame (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There IS a difference between bad information and good information. What I have now is going to stand up to scrutiny better than what was there. This article DID need to be updated, and I will tip my hat to you for providing that necessary motivation. I think everything should meet WP:V now. Montanabw^(talk) 21:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]