Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine

Unsourced articles and content

Is there any reason why we are keeping unsourced articles? For example, I came across Sport horse today. 15 years and no citations, all original research. Why not just toss such items into the Glossary of equestrian terms or Horse type or Horse breed or anywhere but its own standalone article with zero citations? Do we really need articles like this? When do we actually follow Wikipedia policy about OR? How long is too long for OR to remain?

Enquiring minds want to know.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced articles do not need to be deleted just because they have few sources. A lack of citations does not imply original reasearch, either. The idea is to improve them. We actually have several articles like this, draft horse, stock horse, polo pony, etc... and they were created for a specific reason: they have enough content and nuance that they can be a stand alone article, or at least a stand-alone list. Also, for some, people were making "breed" articles out of them or adding them to the list of horse breeds with no definition or explanation. So my take is expand, cite and improve. Montanabw^(talk) 23:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I could understand that as a "reasonable explanation", but how does that align with wiki policies such as WP:Verifiability which says Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed, and WP:No original research which says all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources; additionally, ... any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations? And if we allow such articles to remain uncited (or 95% uncited, as many of these are) for over a decade, then why would anyone bother to improve them? Citing is usually added when content is created/added. Uncited articles make my brain squeak, and finding citations for unsourced material is harder than creating content from actual sources.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikilinking "breed" to Horse breed versus List of horse breeds

From its creation in 2001, until 2009‎, Horse breed was simply a redirect to List of horse breeds. On 30 Jan 2009, an editor created and sourced an article for Horse breed, and today that article is substantially similar to that creation. On that same date in 2009, List of horse breeds was not as comprehensive or clear about "What is a horse breed?" as the new prose article, and it still isn't.

Most horse breed articles start out with a sentence like "Breedname is a breed of horse" with the word "breed" wikilinked to either Horse breed or List of horse breeds. Most of the horse breed articles were created prior to 2009 and so they use the wikilink to List of horse breeds. After 2009, many of them link to Horse breed, but the majority continue to link to the list-article.

Example code:

1. Breedname is a [[List of horse breeds|breed]] of horse
2. Breedname is a [[Horse breed|breed]] of horse
3. Breedname is a [[Horse breed|breed of horse]]
4. Breedname is a [[horse breed]]

Example #1 is common for articles written before 2009. Here are 158 wiki articles that link to the list article (and a few more here). Examples #2 and #3 and #4 make more sense. Here are 68 articles that correctly wikilink to Horse breed. (Disclaimer: I'm quite sure there are many more horse breed articles than these three insource searches can find.)

I think these older wikilinks should be changed to point to the Horse breed article because that is the prose-article which explains what is a horse breed, in depth, with adequate sources for verification. I consider it incorrect to link "breed" to the list-article because that doesn't give the depth of explanation that Horse breed does.

As I've gone through various horse breed articles to do work on them, I have started to change the older wikilinks to point to the Horse breed prose-article, away from the list-article, but on more than one occasion my edit has been reverted—specifically to revert that change.

I am interested in community feedback on whether these wikilinks should point to the prose-article or the list-article, and why you think it should be that way.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I've got no problem linking to Horse breed when that's the concept. Can't think of the acronym to the wiki guideline on this, but there's clear direction that links shouldn't go to something that's a complete surprise. I think there's a minor gray area in the individual breed articles where we say "The Foo horse is a horse breed," as I'm not sure if a casual reader would prefer to go to the list or the concept. I'd say that the two articles themselves should each contain a clear link to the other in the lede so that if someone wanted one but got the other, they can switch easily. Montanabw^(talk) 23:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Did you ever figure out the "acronym to the wiki guideline" you were thinking of?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

English pleasure

Please find and add references. I looked and can't find anything except passing mentions. If not, please consider going to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I found these two USEF sources, [1] [2] which is probably where this content comes from.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Sire line tree?

An editor is adding sections titled "sire line tree" in many named-horse articles. This term isn't described in any of the equine glossaries in Wikipedia, nor wiktionary, nor in any of several equine dictionaries and encyclopedias I have checked.

1. What is it?
2. What reliable source describes what this is?

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)