Talk:German Classic Pony

Not MOS:OL

@Justlettersandnumbers: in response to your don't need three links to the same list, [1] I explained it to you before at Talk:List of French horse breeds § Inclusions in See-also section. The same thing applies to the German breeds as for the French breeds. Mobile users don't see navbar templates, and cell phone users have their sections collapsed (except for the lede and infobox). The magic words {{#related:List of German Horse Breeds}} is likely the only thing that will display for a cell phone user... and that would be shown at the very end.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

That's your opinion, you're entitled to it. I don't agree, and nor does the MOS. For the mobile thing, where is the project-wide consensus that these magic words should be added? Wouldn't it be simpler just to fix the app to display navboxes? – particularly as the 'magic word' apparently doesn't work there anyway, there's just a random selection of 'related pages'. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Right. It's my "opinion" as gleaned from reading MOS:SEEALSO which cautions to limit entries "to a reasonable number" and "should be relevant". One single entry is not excessive, and you have pointed to nothing in the guidelines to suggest that adding List of German horse breeds is inappropriate or violates anything. And if it was not relevant, then (rhetorically) why is it in the navbox?

See Help:Magic words and https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Projects/Related_pages where it says "is a feature that is currently stable on almost all Wikipedia mobile websites". Seems broken on my cell phone (it worked a few weeks ago), but works on several computer browsers on my computer using the mobile website link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Classic_Pony. Read the MediaWiki page for the rationale behind using something like the {{#related:...}} magic word.

Arguing to me that navboxes needs to be displayed on mobile versions is worthless since I don't program that stuff. If you want to argue for inclusion on mobile sites, then find the right venue and make your case. In 2022 someone added to Wikipedia:Navigation template, "Navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia, which accounts for around half of readers." It directs readers to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124168 which mentions in the first comment (from 2020), "navboxes table based layout are the least mobile friendly of all editor based content and would need a complete rewrite by editors to be mobile friendly".   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Position of Characteristics section

@Justlettersandnumbers: It is untrue that History before Characteristics as in (almost) every breed article in the encyclopaedia [2] The placement of the Characteristics section was decided by consensus of the horse breeds task force editors over 15 years ago (in 2007). The characteristics comes before the breed history. See the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine/Horse breeds and its edit history.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is true of almost all breed articles, possibly partly because of the broader guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Article structure. The WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at the horse wikiproject does not override that. Trying to enforce a 'rule' on other editors is almost never productive, and can easily become WP:DISRUPTIVE; trying to enforce a 'rule' that no-one has paid any attention to for a decade or more is past pointless. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting that you should point out an article which was written by a single editor (pinging SMcCandlish) 6 years after the horse breeds article structure was hashed out by multiple editors over an extended period of time. Referring back to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Sorry, but just because a "horse" is also an "animal" doesn't make Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Article structure an overriding guideline.

Your statement no-one has paid any attention to for a decade or more is untrue. I picked out 3 random horse articles from Template:Horse breeds of France to test your theory: Ardennais, Breton horse and Camargue horse. Each one you edited as early as 2011, and since then, without changing the then-order of characteristics-before-history. But later you changed the order of the sections: Ardennais in 2019, Breton in 2021, and Camargue in 2023. I could go on and on with examples just like these three. But in these cases, you also edited these articles long before your change in subsection order. So you were one of those editors who previously agreed with the policy, but later changed your mind. So you cannot accurately espouse no-one has paid any attention to for a decade or more when you did pay attention to it within the last decade, and it has only been more recently you have swapped the sections—with no discussion-consensus that I've been able to locate. The only new articles I was able to find in that list were recent translations from French-wiki where the order was history-then-description. But English-wiki doesn't automatically follow French-wiki guidelines, and though I've tried to rearrange the sections of those new articles to match the horse breeds task force article structure, you always changed it back. As far as I can tell, you are the only one who isn't paying any attention to the 'rule'. (The OKA translators don't even know about the article structure document.)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not eager to get into another breeds-connected editorial dispute, but have to say that it's very unhelpful (to the point of being "disruptive" in a practical sense even if a finger being pointed at anyone in particular isn't useful) for us to have a standard layout for animal (or even more specifically domestic animal) articles but then flip it upside down for one sort of domestic animal. This is confusing both for readers and for editors, and clearly leads to editorial strife (of a "bikeshedding" sort) that isn't productive and is best avoided. I would think that the way to resolve this completely would be to bring up the question at WT:ANIMALS about whether description-before-history is better than history-before-description, with thsoe who care providing their reasons why, and make note that in at least one case there's been species-specific editorial pushback against the current WP:ANIMALS spec. Arrive at a new spec, either a reaffirmation of the current one or a reversal of it (or potentially a "decide on an article-by-article basis" decision, though that would be undesirable chaos), and then bring all the relevant articles (and subtopical projects) into a conformance with it (unless the result is "opt for chaos", which is kinda what we already have, at least with regard to one species).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)