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)

Nah I don't mind if you replace it with a colored horse. --4444hhhh (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)4444hhhh

Dug around for some assorted generic images, both body shots and just heads of horses. Which one do you like better? Probably needs to be one that looks good when small. I liked these for being real clear shots and not ugly. Thoughts? (Or just pick one and plop it on the template. I'm OK with any of them--my personal favorite is probably the mare and foal shot) Montanabw(talk) 09:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

huge box, please collapse by default

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)

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)
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)

Revision of Template

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, {{Perissodactyla}}, 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)
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)
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 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)
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)

Poll: keep or delete images from this navbox

  • Keep
  1. Keep. Montanabw(talk) 05:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete
  1. Delete It may be pretty but it serves no relevant navigational purpose. If it were to serve a purpose, then an image of an equid other than a horse might be more helpful, but the main effect is cutsey. --Una Smith (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Delete As already stated the picture doe not seem to serve any purpose and has noticeable formating effects on smaller computer screens. I would also point out it makes the template itself large then need be by forcing the "Equestrianism and sport" and "Breeds and types" sections into too lines each. Also this is the only template which has an image. Template:Archosauromorpha, Template:Basal crocodylomorphs, Template:Sharks, and Template:Chondrichthyes are all widely used to link related subjects and all do quite well without images.


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)

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)
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)

Why are we polling this anyway? I vote "Keep." I LIKE things that are cute. Most of the other project banners have images or symbols. Montanabw(talk) 05:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rename

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)

Support some kind of move. The template name Template:Equidae has to go. This template never did have much to do with Equidae, but given its current content I am not sure if Template:Equus is the best target name. --Una Smith (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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)
How about Template:Equine? --Una Smith (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose until the broader question of whether we really need two separate articles for Equidae and Equus. I'm not opposed to rename if there is a solid, stable end product, but the articles themselves are in too much flux to still mess with the template quite yet. There was a merge of Equus into Equidae and Horse somewhere back in time, prior to me, and the argument was something along the lines of how the whole thing is not just about horses, there is Asinus, Zebras, etc...I don't know the details, I just know it's a periodic spat that arises. The Equidae template encompasses both a navbox and a project banner and as such covers not just equestrianism but evolution, genetics and other scientific and management articles too. The template should stay put until other issues are resolved or else we will be redoing a whole bunch of things just to put them back again. Please, let's just leave it be for now. Montanabw(talk) 21:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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)
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 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)
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)

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)
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)
Well, Template:Equine would cover mules and donkeys. And all other extant members of Equus. --Una Smith (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)

For the record, this proposal is the result of discussion over several days on Talk:Equidae#Equidae vs. Equus and is motivated by the fact that this template currently links numerous pages about horses, horse husbandry, and horse tack to Equidae, where in many cases it is not relevant. --Una Smith (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

No, I won't. Reverting never does anyone any good and BOTH of you should be discussing not reverting. Don't get caught up in the heat of the moment, whatever platitude floats your boat. It's not something that has to be fixed right this second, no one is going to die if it stays at a version that someone doesn't like for a bit. This should NOT be taken to mean that I agree with the various reverts, nor that I favor the current version over the version that stood for a long time. Let's just not fight, thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good for you, Ealdgyth. Tag teaming is not good. --Una Smith (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
Ealdgyth, surely you do not condone tag teaming? --Una Smith (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
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 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)

Okay, how about this. I copy the non-taxonomic stuff to one of the candidate page names that have been offered, and if later that does not suit anyone, you work it out among yourselves and move the page. --Una Smith (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

Not only a taxonomy template

This is a navagation template to help people find there way around ALL the many, many articles in WikiProject Equine, not just taxonomy. The young person who originally created it intended it as such, and such as been the consensus of WPEQ. I don't really care that much if we call it Equus, Equidae or Equine. In fact, between those three names, I don't care at all any more now that I understand the Equidae/Equus thing a bit better. But this is NOT just a taxonomy template and you are hijacking it into one. If you want to make a template just for taxonomy, then go for it, but you want it keep the template name Equidae for page transclusion purposes, then this template IS transcluded onto at least 350 horse breed articles and almost all of the article linked on the original version (I know this, I did it by hand to every one of them!) and it will be your responsibility to find every one of them and fix the situation. So I am restoring my last edits and I suggest you leave it that way until we reach a REAL consensus. You can always pull your version from history as needed. Montanabw(talk) 01:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The non-taxonomy stuff doesn't belong here. Not to worry, Montanabw, we'll fix it. This template is in good hands, really. Have a nice vacation. --Una Smith (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Una, is "have a nice vacation" another of your personal attacks? Please clarify your statement. Montanabw(talk) 02:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Guys, chill. It's just a template -- Gurch (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Montanabw, please calm down. I was merely thinking of your remark here. --Una Smith (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
You need to stop sniping at Montanabw. Comment on the content, not the contributor. ++Lar: t/c 04:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding other templates, three other major domesticated animals have templates, those templates are Template:Domestic dog, Template:Domestic cat, Template:Sheep navbox. While all have section on breeds, none of the three involve related taxa. Of the taxonavigation boxes, (sample: Template:Archosauromorpha, Template:Basal crocodylomorphs, Template:Shark nav, and Template:Chondrichthyes) all focus on taxonomy only with the exception being Sharks which has a section on human interaction. Template:Camelids only focuses on the extant species with no inclusion of camel husbandry. Point being this template is trying to cover two very different subjects and doing a very poor job of the taxonomy portion. This template as it is should stay, but definitely be renamed to reflect that its focus is hose husbandry and not taxonomy.
Looking at the history shows that this template was created as a taxonomy template primarily and, while titled Equidae, was the header was Equines. The equestrianism was added in not by the creator if the template but by Montanabw. The template completely turned into an Equestrianism template with this edit. See the above section Revision of Template" for the "discussion". Overall, to be honest, With the majority of the editing done/approved by or reverted by Montanabw it seems that there is a bit of ownership involved. The proposed renaming is in line with the current usage of the template and the Creation of a separate template for taxonomics would satisfy the original intent of creation of this template before it was changed.--Kevmin (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not arguing with that, but let's get some more people weighing in. It won't hurt to wait a day or two for folks to see what's up and weigh in. I'm fine with splitting the "equestrianism" stuff away from the taxo stuff, but others may have different opinions. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem, the main portion of the comment was for Montanabw. I have no problems waiting for feed back and I notified WikiProject Equine on the 19th about the rename when i made proposal here. --Kevmin (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, stop with the reverting...

Both of you are heading towards 3RR with all the reverting, and I see no need for either of you to get blocked for edit warring. Let's stop with the reverting and take a night or two and think about things so that calm discussion can be done. As well as allow others to weigh in on the discussion. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, but can we keep the older version, please? Montanabw(talk) 01:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Only if you guys stop squabbling over it -- Gurch (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but Kevmin and I have been working together on this template, peacefully, for days now. Why should an editor who jumped in late and started the reverts, apparently before even reading our discussion here, get what they want? --Una Smith (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Because when an edit war starts, the accepted practise is to warn about it, and restore a version from before the conflict started (and resort to protection/blocking if the edit war continues). Obviously this means that one side will always complain that the state the page has been restored to is the wrong version. That is unavoidable. If people can come to an agreement on this page as to what changes should me made, then they can be made with the weight of the discussion behind them. At the moment, there isn't really an agreement here -- Gurch (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Right. Thank you Gurch for choosing the wrong version. As it happens, I asked that question before the page was reverted, or at least before I saw that it was. I am happy with the compromise that Ealdgyth proposes to end the current conflict, which just happens to be exactly what Kevmin and I have been discussing anyway. --Una Smith (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Not much of a choice involved; this is clearly the divide between old and new. Obviously if you all agreed with changes on top of that from the start then there would not have been any reverting in the first place, so I apologise for getting in the way but it's probably better than ending up with the page protected and not able to make the changes you want to make at all. Now, as far as I can see the compromise Ealdgyth proposes involves waiting for wider input. So in the meantime, no harm will come of leaving the template how it is for now -- Gurch (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Gurch, I support your revert to the last "stable" version (pardon the pun). And if you note the above and the discssion at Talk:Equidae, where this began, you will note that I did the original removal of the other party's version after checking in on the discussion at some point and stating that I opposed some of the issues being discussed. I also was one of the first contributors to the original template (as, in fact, was Una come to think of it, she helped us with formatting issues early on) . Thus, I must note that the above statement of "jumped in late" is not appropriate here. I have been off-wiki for two days due to my real life work.
Further, I absolutely cannot keep up with the other party's speed of questioning and editing today, so I have no idea what was asked at which point. My own edits today reflect a small but notable edit to the old version, acknowledging the creation of [{Equus (genus)]] and hence it was not quite a full revert. I also believe that if the edits of Kevmin are looked at alone, his contributions to the template were minor, and in fact he reverted some of his work back to the original version. Thus Kevmin is an innocent party here. Montanabw(talk) 02:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that was my impression also, but that does not matter much; after all, if edits are discussed beforehand, then who actually makes them is mostly irrelevant. I think it is best if there is more discussion on this issue; perhaps everyone can wait until tomorrow and make some changes if there's a clearer agreement by then. Montanabw, going from the discussion here it looks as though your preferred changes might be in the minority, though a rather small minority at the moment, there being only a couple of other participants in the discussion. The important thing is to remember that you're seeking a compromise, not a victory, somewhere there is a version that you and Una would both be happy with, just a case of finding it -- Gurch (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Two things, in regards to my edits that was an unrelated change to test a hypothesis I had and as is shown in the edit history I reverted back to the template as it was before I started. I have just spent time going over the history edit by edit and unless there was a name change as some point UNa did not edit this template until her recent updates that started this fuss.--02:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Montanabw, your ownership is showing. Kevmin is exactly right. --Una Smith (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Last one today: I DO care about quality control and have an institutional memory of over two years on wiki. I believe that is not the same as "ownership." Thus, I ask the other party to please henceforth refrain from making veiled personal attacks on me that are disguised as "advice" and not further personalize this talk page discussion. Every time the other party and I argue over something, the other party inevitably accuses me of ownership and tells me to quit working on in one way or another. I've really had it with this approach. For the dozenth time, please remember WP:NPA. I really MUST go offline now and so can you kindly avoid creating another crisis anywhere else until you give me a fair chance to weigh in? You KNOW this is an ongoing situation. And I am really VERY busy in real life through the end of the month and would vastly prefer not to have to pull time from work to protect my hobby. Montanabw(talk) 03:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

<-- Didn't I tell everyone to chill like an hour ago now? :) Neither of you are perfect, and nor is. Don't get hung up on links with captialized acronyms in them -- Gurch (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Template history question

To Kevmin's issues, because of Kevmin's and another third party's well-reasoned, calm explanations of the taxonomy issues to me at Talk:Equidae, I no longer have opposition to the notion of splitting this template into just articles about taxonomy that parallel other taxonomy boxes and a navbox to articles about the modern animals in genus Equus, including science and husbandry both. The basic argument makes sense. But this template is transcluded onto literally hundreds of breed and management articles totally unrelated to taxonomy and so a template split needs to be undertaken in some fashion that addresses this problem. (Scott Alter had a fix for the Horse breeds task force header that allowed an automatic switch of the talk page header to WPEQ when they merged, don't know if we can do that here or not...) As for the taxonomy versus not issue, this template was originally created by a youth editor named 4HHHHH (or however many H-s were in the name). I helped this individual clean up the template, expanded it, usually with what I believed to be consensus, (note earlier discussions above) and some other editors, even Una were involved in its early structure. User 4HHH also created the original form of the pages that are now WikiProject Equine, but this user is apparently no longer active on, and thus primary maintenance of this template has fallen to me. Montanabw(talk) 03:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out above Una, unless there was a name change does NOT show in the edit history until January 20, 2009. The article was a taxonomy template in the beginning as shown by the history and didn't shift to a Equestrianism dominant template until Scottalter's change of February 6 2008 when the focus was shifted completely to Equestrianism.
CLARIFICATION-What has been suggested by me is the moving of this template to a name reflecting its use as an Equestrian template. After that move the then empty name "Template:Equidae" could have a taxonomy based template created for use connecting the various Equidae taxa together as is done with the other boxes I have shown in my comments.
This method will avoid any problems with the breed articles and at the same time solve to taxonomy problem.--Kevmin (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to weigh in with some of my ideas about the use of templates on equine-related pages in general. I don't think my comments only are for the above header, but I'm just adding to the bottom of the discussion. I'm not here to take sides (I'm not even following along with who said what), but rather to give my own opinions. First, my general opinion about templates is that templates should only be placed on articles that are also listed on the templates...so any one template should not be put on all of the horse-related pages.
Second, I agree that taxonomy should be separated out of this article, to go along with all other templates on animals. The change in focus I made to this template last year was at the same time when the taxonomy templates were being created. At the same time when I removed the taxonomy information from this template, I created {{Perissodactyla}}. All of the extanct species of equidae are listed in {{Perissodactyla}}, which is already on all of the species' articles - so there is no need to repeat these species in another template just for equidae. If anyone desires a template of the extinct species, {{Equidae extinct nav}} could be created to parallel other extinct mammal species templates (like {{Canidae extinct nav}}) (which I would be willing to create - assuming someone could provide me with a list to use). The problem then is what to do with the hybrids and horse breeds - since they do not have any specific place in the taxonomy scheme. That is why they are currently on this template. Last year, I proposed making a separate template for horse breeds, but I was told that it would be a bad idea, since there is no agreement on how to categorize breeds. Could there be a template with just a list of all the breeds (without trying to sub-group them)? Also, there could be a separate template for equine hybrids.
Third, I have no objection to renaming this template to something reflecting equestrianism. After all, the taxonomy is already on other templates.
Finally, to Montanabw, unfortunately there is no easy fix when a template is split (unlike the reverse, when they are merged). --Scott Alter 04:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Within Equidae, the classification of interest is the genera and above, except in Equus, which has numerous extinct and extant species. So, although {{Perissodactyla}} is a great navbox to the extant species in an old and diverse group, I feel the need for a navbox to all the species of Equidae, starting with Equus and the extinct genera of Equidae. At this point there are very few articles on extinct species outside Equus (apart from monotypic genera), but there are enough now that such a navbox is needed. The navbox might as well include the hybrids too. --Una Smith (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
To be honest I have never been thrilled with the concept of separating the Extant from the Extinct. By treating the extinct taxa as second class, only mentioned when specifically ask about, it is only showing a small part of the overall picture for may taxa. There is one living Genus of Equidae, there are 2 other Tribes and 2other SUBFAMILIES in Equidae that tell the tale of the wins and losses of teh family from its first appearance to the modern day that span all the continents except Australia and Antarctica. Why should there be two templates for the taxonomy of the family?--Kevmin (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Perhaps {{Perissodactyla}} should be moved to {{Extant Perissodactyla}}. --Una Smith (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
While I understand the desire to combine the extinct and extanct species into one template, I do not think this should be done without discussion at the parent WikiProjects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals and Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals. For all of the mammals, species templates only contain extanct articles. I do not know the exact reason for this decision, but I think it should be explored before we deviate from the standard for all other animals. My guess is that by including extinct species, the navboxes would be way too large and unwieldy. A large effort went in to creating these navboxes for extanct species, and it is important to remain consistent with the other templates. I do not think equine is that unique that it should be an exception to the standard usage of the navboxes.
Currently, extinct species are not being treated as second class, rather there has previously been little interest (and few articles) on the topics. If there are two separate navboxes for extinct and extanct, extinct would be separate but equal. It would not be that difficult to navigate between extinct and extanct species. Equine and equus (genus) would contain both templates, since there are species of those taxa that are both extinct and extanct. Links to these two articles would appear on both templates, and would be the link between extinct and extanct. I'll probably make up an extinct template to see how big it would be. If it does turn out to be large (which I suspect it will be), the extanct species may get lost among the extinct species. Navboxes are supposed to be a navigation tool, not a comprehensive list of everything relevant to a topic. Based solely on the number of taxa and species within equine, having all these links on one template is probably not that conducive to navigation. The "the tale of the wins and losses of the family" is not appropriate for navboxes, as navboxes should not be used to convey information. This information can (and should) be in equine. --Scott Alter 23:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I just created {{Equidae extinct nav}} (original version). Another argument for not merging extinct with extanct is that there are virtually no articles about the specific species of extinct equine species. Additionally, many genus articles do not mention any species, and there are many genus articles missing. A navbox is supposed to be a collection of links to existing articles - not red links or lists of items without articles. There is no good way to include the taxa of the extinct species when there are no articles on the extinct species. --Scott Alter 00:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the issue of species, most editors who work extensively follow the example of wikiproject dinosaurs, in that articles are created to Genus level and species informatin is included in to the genus level article as many species have only a single to a couple of scientific articles per species. Take a look at Tyrannosaurs, Stegosaurus, and especieally Psittacosaurus, which has a very large number of species.
The navbox we would be looking for would be for genera, as from the genus page one can move to species page, plus I am working on creating pages for the existing redlink genera. Do you ahve a link to any discussions re extinct not to be in taxoboxes?--Kevmin (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly where the taxobox discussions took place, but User:Tombstone coordinated the efforts at User:Tombstone/Mammal templates. There is also the documentation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Article templates/doc. If the your proposed navbox does not include species, then even if there were a combined template, {{Perissodactyla}} would still need to be used on the species articles. All of the mammals templates link directly to species articles, so this proposed template wouldn't really fit with the others at all. I revised {{Equidae extinct nav}} to only include taxa that include extinct species (so eqqus is included). If this template is fine with you, then there is basically no overlap with {{Perissodactyla}} - so I'm not sure what still needs to be discussed regarding taxa navboxes. The only overlap are the equine and equus articles, which would have both {{Perissodactyla}} and {{Equidae extinct nav}}. --Scott Alter 01:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Um, like whatever you guys just said SOUNDS really, really good and productive. LOL! BTW, glad to see some eyes working on this and the other related articles, it's been a long neglected area. Oh, and equine redirects to horse unless someone changed that recently. At this point you know my main worry, so whatever sorts out otherwise, just let me know what you're up to if you want to do it with template Equidae! (smile) Montanabw(talk) 06:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Solutions? To our own corners?

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)

So here's a suggestion: Can Scott help us split out two templates and assist with technical issues? If we must do any manual replacing of one template with the other, we can ALL help, and if there is a dispute over which template a page gets, we can err on the side of including both of them for now. Then, each side can team up one "troublemaker" (grin) and one "babysitter." (grinning even more). Hence, Una and Kevmin can make one into the perfect taxonomy template. I am willing to agree to stay out of that particular template editing process completely. Then, we can also create an "Equine" or "Equus" or whatever template to help laypeople in general and in particular sixth graders with school projects, and I can work on that one with the help of Ealdgyth as "babysitter" or whomever else wants to help, and Una can in turn agree stay out of that one (I am presuming Kevmin isn't partic8ularly interested in the topic). Could this solve the problem? Montanabw(talk) 16:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


Okay, per our prior discussion I waited two days for further input. Reading all further input, I find no pertinent objections nor new ideas so I have continued as I proposed last: I moved this template from Template:Equidae to Template:Equine. Next, I looked at incoming links to Template:Equidae, to begin disambiguating them, and here I find a problem that needs your input.

The very first link to Template:Equidae was American Quarter Horse, which is not a page on that template (nor on Template:Equine). Ditto for Horseshoe, and so on and on and on. In effect, that template was link spam. I will remove the {{Equidae}} tag from those articles but I will not insert {{Equine}} in its place. Of course, anyone who feels that an article should use this template is free to insert it there. --Una Smith (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am still somewhat undecided what to do with the hybrid animals, but it occurs to me that as there is so much opposition to including articles about breeds and types (and technical articles such as Stud book) in the navbox that removing the entire group may be a good solution. The articles on hybrids are together in a category, Category:Hybrid equids. --Una Smith (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Everything that you have just done looks good. I agree that we have a "link spam" problem with articles using currently Template:Equidae. Either new navbox templates should be created for these articles, or there should be no navbox at all. I hate to bring up old conflicts, but we should really use a Horse tack templates. I'm not sure what to do with the breeds articles, but I would support their removal for now (rather than trowing unrelated articles into a template). As for the hybrids, I am going to create a new template just for them. Since there are so few, I may create a template that includes all mammal hybrids.
My only concern currently is why Template:Equidae redirects to {{Equidae extinct nav}} and not {{Equine}}. Although this will eventually be a non-issue, I think all of the articles tagged with {{Equidae}} relate more to {{Equine}} than to {{Equidae extinct nav}}. Also, I think all of the articles that appear on {{Equine}} should be changed so they transclude that template directly, rather than through {{Equidae}}. Then, we'll know that all articles transcluding Template:Equidae need to be changed. --Scott Alter 16:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I am disambiguating the links to {{Equidae}}, so where it redirects soon will be a non-issue. When disambiguation is done, there will be no articles linked to that template. Most articles now linked to it should not be tagged with either new template: they are articles about breeds and individual horses, and about tack minutiae. The horse breed articles don't need a template, so much as more categories: breed by continent; breed by common use; breed by type (color, gait, size, etc.). I redirected {{Equidae}} to {{Equidae extinct nav}} rather than {{Equine}} because, well, {{Equidae extinct nav}} and {{Equidae}} are equivalent. I hope this is satisfactory to all. --Una Smith (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Disambiguation is all done. --Una Smith (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's a new template for hybrids: {{Mammal hybrids}}. I'm going to be creating a Cfd for Category:Hybrid equids to rename it to Category:Equid hybrids to match others in Category:Mammal hybrids. --Scott Alter 17:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I recommend moving the category to Category:Equine hybrids, in line with Category:Feline hybrids and appropriate because all species involved are equines (a subset of equids). --Una Smith (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
More discussion here. --Una Smith (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Good god, what a mess

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)

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)
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 {{Equidae}}. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Can we please just ... not snipe at each other? I've never understood why any time someone reverts someone else's edits its immediately "ownership". I can actually see that yes, a breed nav box of some sort would be useful, which is what Montana seems to be objecting to the removal of the old nav box for. As for the notice at the Equine Wikiproject, I don't think anyone realised that the plan was to remove a template from every article where it was. For that, I'm sorry I didn't understand the intent. Personally, I'd rather not have ANY nav template. I find them bulky and ugly, but I lost that vote a while back. Let's take some time and discuss things and get someone besides the four of us involved. Dana? Cora? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I could do entirely without {{Equine}}. --Una Smith (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC content and use of navbox Template:Equine

What is the proper content of Template:Equine, a navbox, and on what articles should it be used? —Una Smith (via posting script) 16:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

For context see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. --Una Smith (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

List of templates

RFC discussion

Could someone organize this as 'Proposal A', 'Proposal B', etc.? Novickas (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Here, I think....., are the to main points of view on what needs to be done at this time.
  1. The template as it exists here is fine formatting and content wise, and as there are ~350 horse breeds a template for them isimpracticle and thus this template should be placed in all of them.
  2. The template as exists here is more appropriate for the proposed usage. This template version is organized around domestic Equines. The section "Breeds and " types should not include a list of all living Equines, there hybrids, and rather arbitrarily chosen extinct Equines. That section should be expanded to include to various major types of Domestic Equines, such as Racehorses, draft horses, miniature ponies, etc... The template should be included only on the pages it has links for, not on pages for which it does not have links, eg not on the ~350 breed pages.
  3. The template as it exists here is not perfect, but a start, intended to encompass not only the breed articles but also the management articles, the equipment articles, the riding & sport articles, and as such is something of a gateway to the 1500+ horse articles on (not counting the hundreds of articles on individual horses such as those at Thoroughbred Racing WikiProject) Montanabw(talk) 04:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I will probably be corrected as to this interpretation but this is a start.--Kevmin (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Just added one more
So the differences are the title and the number of articles linked under "Breeds and types"?
Why aren't there navboxes with a tighter focus? Surely the list of horse breeds could be organized into smaller navboxes, so that there was a navbox that included just the extinct breeds, or just the modern types, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The reason put forth is that there is discrepancy as to how Breed types are defined so there has been no creation of breed lists other then the main List.--Kevmin (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing and Kevmin, no, it's more complicated. There are over 350 horse breed articles on. Plus even more articles on the historical types/breeds that are very difficult to classify (For example, was the Old English Black really a "breed" or just a type? Hard to say, they didn't keep pedigree records back then like they do now) If you look at the list, you will also note that there are periodic disputes even over what is a horse versus a pony, and unlike dog breeds, horses don't neatly fit into classifications by type -- the [{Thoroughbred]] is both a race horse AND a sport horse, the Friesian horse is arguably a Baroque horse, a sport horse, a coach horse and maybe even a draft horse. It's a minefield. The International Museum of the Horse at Kentucky Horse Park apparently gave up totally and they just organize breeds by the part of the world in which they originated. There's also nothing for horses like the AKC to formally decree what group a breed goes into, nor even what is or is not a "breed." So, whatever else happens, IMHO, a navbox is best to just link to the list and people looking for breeds can go from there. Montanabw(talk) 04:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
But to the immediate point -- the objective problem with the Navigation issue: I honestly don't really care what the end result is, but we have to have SOMETHING for WPEQ as a whole, not just the breed/taxonomy stuff. What i am after is some sort of appropriate general navigation guide on every horse article in WPEQ to help people find the main articles for the main categories (history, breeds, tack, taxonomy, colors, management, science, etc.) it is likely impossible to link to all the 1500 articles in WPEQ, but a navbox with a link to each main overview area would work) If no one likes the existing navbox, or if what I am talking about is something different (I was looking at the Scouting navbox as an example of what I'd be after), then let's fix it, not destroy it. Montanabw(talk) 04:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The points Montanabw raises are exactly why I recommend addressing navigation of horse breed/type articles via more extensive use of categories, not navboxes or lists. (I think it is actually far less complicated, except for those editors who have a POV about what qualifies as a breed and what is a mere type or land race.) For "overhead" navigation, an equine portal seems appropriate. --Una Smith (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

First, some background. There is a desire to tag all articles in WPEQ with navboxes for easy navigation of equine-related articles. From March 2008 until the current discussion began, there were three templates in use. {{Equidae}} (now {{Equine}}) contains mostly equestrian articles, with other random topics relating to taxonomy. {{Perissodactyla}} contains the taxa down to the species of all extanct members of the perissodactyla order (includes all extanct species of equidae). {{Equine coat colors}} contains articles relating to equine appearance. Because {{Equidae}} (now {{Equine}}) was the generic template with no specific focus, it was placed on all articles in WPEQ. Now, the project is attempting to improve navigation of equine-related articles.

Here are the current issues as I see them:

  1. Article tagging. The big issue is whether all the articles within WPEQ should be tagged with the same navbox - even on articles that are not listed in the navbox. For the past year, most WPEQ articles had been tagged with {{Equidae}} (now {{Equine}}). The first question is if this is appropriate, or considered "link spam," since most of the articles tagged with the template do not actually appear in the navbox.
  2. Horse breed articles. The problem with the horse breed articles is that apparently there cannot possibly be any consensus achieved as to how to appropriately link to these articles (even though this discussion has never been attempted). No one has agreed to start a discussion on the matter. I do not know anything about horses, so I would not even know where to start the discussion.
  3. Focus of {{Equine}} (formerly {{Equidae}}). The focus of this template seems to be shifting to equestrianism.
  4. Taxa. There is a recent desire to link to extinct taxa within the equidae family. {{Perissodactyla}} only links to extanct species, in line with all the other templates for mammal orders (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Article templates/doc). To maintain consistency, it has been recommended that {{Perissodactyla}} not be modified. Some people have desired both extinct and extanct species to be together on the same template. Unfortunately, there are few articles on extinct species. It has also been pointed out that there will likely not be articles on all the extinct species. Instead, there will be articles on extinct genra. To address this, two "competing" templates have been created - both with many red links. {{Equidae extinct nav}} contains links to all genra in the equine family, grouped by subfamily. {{Equus}} contains links to species, hybrids, and other evolution-related articles.
  5. Hybrids. With the strictly taxa-containing templates, the hybrids are left out. Thus, {{Mammal hybrids}} was created to address the problem.

My proposed solution is to create a hierarchy (or non-hierarchical web) of templates, such that all articles are listed on at least one navbox and can be reached by navigating between one (or more) navboxes. We would need to agree the on topics and contents for each template. Previously proposed topics include equestrianism, tack, breeds, and taxa. Equine coat colors is currently being used without any objection, so I suppose that can stand for now. There has been previous discussion about a tack template, resulting in 3 templates ({{Bits}}, {{Reins}}, and {{Tack}}), but none are currently in use due to disagreements in organization.

Here are my comments relating to the issues I listed.

  1. Article tagging. I would like to see all articles containing navboxes, but only if the article is listed in the navbox on its page. I do think that {{Equidae}} was being used as "link spam," because there was no better navigation of equine-related articles. With lots of new navboxes, this should no longer be an issue, as every article should be categorized into one of the navboxes.
  2. Horse breeds. Although there has been no discussion about breeds (as some have stated that it is too complicated to attempt), I think we should move forward in placing breeds into navboxes (with discussion of the organization). We should at least attempt a discussion before completely dismissing the idea.
  3. Focus of {{Equine}} (formerly {{Equidae}}). I am fine with changing the focus to equestrianism - and maybe even renaming the template to "Equestrianism." But I think there should be a template called {{Equine}} that essentially links to the main topics of all the other templates.
  4. Taxa. {{Perissodactyla}} should be kept on all the extanct species articles, equidae, and equus (genus). {{Equidae extinct nav}} should be placed on all the genra and equidae. The only outstanding issue would be extinct species. I'm not sure what to do with them, since there are very few articles about them.
  5. Hybrids. {{Mammal hybrids}} should be used on all the hybrid articles.

Using my above recommendations will create the framework to establishing links between all of the articles by these navboxes. To address questions of linkage ahead of time, {{Perissodactyla}} and {{Equidae extinct nav}} would be linked by equidae and equus (genus). A new article on Equid hybrid would link {{Mammal hybrids}} to {{Equine}}. Templates for breeds would be linked through List of horse breeds and maybe Horse breeding, which also are on {{Equine}}. With this as a starting point, new templates could be created for additional categories of topics - all which would link to other articles. This way, when a user is at one article, the navbox on that page will show other closely-related articles, with easy and logical navigation to other equine-related topics. If all of the articles can be appropriately categorized, there will be no need for a general purpose navbox. I believe this should be a goal of the project. --Scott Alter 05:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The most contention is over the content and use of {{Equine}}, and the most contentious item on that template is List of horse breeds. My impression is that Montanabw wants a prominent link to List of horse breeds on every horse breed article and every "overview" article on other topics related to horses, and to achieve that prominent link the method she prefers is a navbox that by default is expanded. Her second preference is a See also section, again with a prominent link to List of horse breeds, on all those articles. My view is that using either a list article or a template in this manner is problematic because, as Montanabw's example Friesian horse shows, both list and template solutions involve choosing among multiple legitimate placements, which violates WP:NPOV. I propose deleting List of horse breeds from {{Equine}}, and instead ordering all 350 horse breed articles via categories and linking to the top category, Category:Horse breeds. --Una Smith (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Not all readers use categories, so it makes sense to use multiple options to help navigation, in my mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I think a good model is provided by Dog breed, List of dog breeds, {{Domestic dog}}, and Category:Dog breeds. --Una Smith (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, to me the template is too detailed (as it is, to me, in dogs). Could it be shortened to Evolution and history, Domestication, Breeds and types, Equestrianism and sport, Equine science and management? These would point to stubs that then list the topics/subcategories. But I would leave Category:Horse breeds in the breed articles. Novickas (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I think with the creation of sub-navboxes, {{Equine}} is becoming more simplified. Once a consensus has been reached, the hybrids and species (types) will be on a separate template. The tack will also be on a separate template. {{Equine}} should then only contain links to the main articles of each of the sub-navboxes, greatly simplify this template. --Scott Alter 19:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I like and think we should follow the dog model. However, the dog model consists of many templates for the breed types (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Templates and Category:Dog templates). Recognizing that not all readers use categories, and following the dog example, I think List of horse breeds should remain on the template. Still, the problem is how to appropriately link individual breed articles to List of horse breeds and/or Category:Horse breeds. My ideal scenario (as previously stated), would be to create templates for types of breeds (just like the dog breed articles use). If this cannot be done, could a template for "horse breeding" be created? I don't know how many articles could be classified as related to horse breeding (excluding the breeds articles themselves), but Horse breeding, List of horse breeds, and Category:Horse breeds is a start. If there are sufficient articles to create a template called as {{Horse breeding}}, I wouldn't mind if all horse breed articles are tagged with this - even though they don't actually appear on the navbox. (In contrast, I do not think a more generic {{Equine}} should appear on all breeds articles.) Getting away from navboxes, why not add a "see also" link on all breeds articles to List of horse breeds? Another possibility (and very easy one at that) is to somehow add a link to List of horse breeds in {{Infobox Horse}}, though I'm not sure how to fit the link in appropriately. --Scott Alter 19:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of linking the List of horse breeds to {{Infobox Horse}}, which is the breed infobox. Makes the most sense to me, honestly, rather than a separate nav template. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
List of horse breeds does not belong in {{Infobox Horse}}, but Horse breed does, so I put it in (version). At present Horse breed is a redirect to List of horse breeds, but I strongly recommend making it into an article. Someone clicking the link in the infobox will be expecting an article that explains what is a horse breed, not the list that is the bulk of the content now on that page. --Una Smith (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
We have no consensus to create a new article called Horse Breed. The old one was a stub and was merged into the list due to lack of content. If anyone read my points below, you will note that the list of horse breeds was inspired by the list of dog breeds. But unlike dog breeds, horse breeds are not as clearly defined or as well organized. The template needs to work with the articles we have, not the stubs we might have some day. To pun a bit, we need to let go of the horse breed problem here on template talk, it's literally putting the cart before the horse. It is easy to change one link later. It isn't worth wasting bandwidth on here. Montanabw(talk) 19:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This is more or less how I would like {{Equine}} to look. I agree with Ealdgyth that it should not be used on the horse breed articles. Instead, I think we need an article Horse breed, that is linked in the lead of each horse breed article in the manner of "Nightmare is a horse breed known only in our dreams..." That way, Horse breed becomes the overview article, akin to Dog breed, for all horse breed articles. Much of the non-list content of List of horse breeds can be moved to Horse breed. --Una Smith (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say that I did not say that I did not think that specific template should not be used on horse breed articles. Above I said I disliked nav templates in general, I have yet to weigh in on the specific case here. I did agree that putting a link to List of horse breeds in the {{Infobox Horse}} might be a good solution. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
That reminds me to remark that {{Infobox Horse}} has a misleading name; it probably should be {{Infobox Horse breed}}, to avoid confusion with any infobox for articles about individual horses. --Una Smith (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
(r to Scott) Many editors (and I am one of them) consider "See also" sections to be, with rare exceptions, merely a temporary holding cell for links that need to be integrated into the text of the article. --Una Smith (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree on that point, but there is no good way to integrate List of horse breeds into the text of an article. I'm just throwing out any ideas that may be acceptable. But I do support your proposal to separate the text of List of horse breeds into Horse breed. --Scott Alter 20:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Given a link to Horse breed in the lead, and a link to Category:Horse breeds (and/or subcategories of that category), will there remain any real need to link to List of horse breeds? --Una Smith (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Please slow down. At the moment, there is absolutely no consensus to split "List of horse breeds" in to two articles, the list and "Horse breeds". While it may be OK to have "horse breeds" as an intro article, with the full list of breeds as a "see also" to that article, I'm not sure it is necessary, at least not with the amount of text currently in the list. If there is a lot of extra information, Una, that you're planning on adding in, then I can see where it would be useful to have a seperate text article. However, as it is, there is no more text in "List of horse breeds" than there is in many featured lists. Just having some text is not enough to make the argument that it should be split. So please tell me, Una, do you plan to add a bunch more referenced information, or were you just planning on splitting up the article/list and then dumping the referencing and link cleanup on the rest of us? Also, I like Scott and Ealdgyth's plan of having a link to "List of horse breeds" in the infobox - perhaps at the bottom? I know I've seen ones like that before, I'll have to look around and see where. For now, I have to get offline to attend a meeting. Please do not make any page moves/changes until more people have had a chance to weigh in on this and you get true consensus, rather than what we have now, which is an amalgamation of different opinions, proposals and half-formed thoughts, none of which have have a consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Dana, are you confusing me with Montanabw? She is the one who "dumped" on others the task of fixing links after moving {{Equidae}} to {{Equine}};[1][2][3] I fixed the links. --Una Smith (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, new header for organizational purposes

Summing up various points with indents and signing mine individually so as to facilitate discussion on various points and make threading easier. Overall, Scott Alter has many good ideas here, and provide good grounds for discussion. Montanabw(talk) 06:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  • First off, please do not mistake or distort what I am doing. I most certainly did NOT move template Equidae to Equine -- Una did that. I originallly opposed the change and at the time said that if the template was changed, the person changing it should also take responsibility for fixing all the pages it linked to. So Una also did that change, though not precisely in the manner I anticipated! She "dumped" the job on herself. Surely there was an easier way to have done this. Montanabw(talk) 06:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Second, I LIKE Ealdgyth's suggestion to put a link to List of horse breeds into the infobox. That is the simplest and most elegant suggestion to that particular problem that I can imagine. (Ealdgyth, IMHO you know how to do it right, go for it, it's outside this discussion anyway) Montanabw(talk) 06:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Third, I personally and officially have no involvement with the new Equidae, and Equus templates. Taxonomists, work away and the discussions can go there. I just don't see why we need three of them, personally. But I also DGAF. Montanabw(talk) 06:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Fourth, Scott Alter did a great job with the coat colors template and yes, if we can just leave that one alone, it is doing its job and working very well. Too bad we can't do the same on all the rest. The tack templates are a no-win situation at present due to the consensus problem between the only two editors who appear to care. Montanabw(talk) 06:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Fifth, Horse breeds/List of horse breeds. Let's leave the actual list as is for now. Ealdgyth's suggestion solves my concerns about having people easily find other breed articles. That's all I really need. There was a deliberate merge of Horse breed into the list, as it was a stub at the time that spun off into the horse breeding article. The combo of text and list is inspired by List of dog breeds. List of horse breeds is a list, intended as a list, not an article. And please do trust me, there is NOT going to be a lasting consensus on the categorization of living horse breeds issue. It's worse than dog breed stuff. Horse people have no standardized categories like the AKC does, partly because horses themselves are rather versatile. One need only look at past history from a couple years back on various articles such as an old debate on what was and was not a pony, as well as the routine edits to nearly every horse breed article claiming that a given breed can do almost anything, including walking on water and leaping tall buildings with a single bound. LOL! I BEG people not to go near this one for now. Please, please, please! Montanabw(talk) 06:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sixth, to the one issue out of the immediate template discussion that I would like to participate on, the concept of a WPEQ navbox. The Template:Equine/sandbox Una has is not a tremendous change from template Equine. There is room for good faith negotiation and collaboration on this one. I would like to see some elements of both old and new put into the final version. But I would prefer not to have red links. (We have dozens of horse health/disease articles, that's a navbox in and of itself, note the categories) And yes, I want to keep the doggone picture! (LOL) Montanabw(talk) 06:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

ONWARD! Montanabw(talk) 06:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh -- just a note from a low level of the dog project, since someone here has been leaving notes -- dogs are pretty chaotic too; in the English-speaking world there are many breed clubs with their own categorisations; look at the international breed club organization, the Fédération Cynologique Internationale, for organising more precisely by type and function than the American Kennel Club. There are a vast number of dog breeds due to the enormous plasticity of the dog genome and the public's hunger for novelty; not a horse situation, I don't think.
Dog type and the List of dog types (Category:Dog types) might be interesting for you. I'm sure everyone has an opinion, so I'll be hiding behind that rock over there now.--Hafwyn (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


Many navboxes have images, there must be some way to incorporate them that plays well with multiple devices. RexxS, any ideas on this? Montanabw(talk) 10:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I removed it for two reasons: first, because it kept popping up everywhere, in any article that didn't have any other image in it, in mobile view and in hovercards; and second, because it served no useful purpose. However, the best solution to the first and more serious problem would be to simply confine the use of the template to the pages it is supposed to link, as is our invariable (?) practice throughout the project. The current deployment on almost 500 pages is neither appropriate nor useful. I've suggested before, though I can't recall where or when, that Portal:Horses should be used instead. As an experiment, I've replaced the template with a portal bar at Noma pony and at Senner. Does the hovercard problem still occur? (the first image on the portal page is the one I removed from here). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Montanabw: As far as I know, there's no problem with displaying images on any common device. However, navboxes do not display on mobile view at all; compare the bottom of:
Although the navbox documentation says "This template does not display in the mobile view of; it is desktop only. Read the documentation for an explanation.", there is no explanation in the documentation, so your guess is as good as mine why not. --RexxS (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The image is something I am not going to fight over. I see the MOS gods are now leaning toward removing images (where they once favored them, oh well). Personally, I have never had the hovercard problem described here, so it feels like a solution in search of a problem to me. The horses portal doesn't link to the list of horse breeds, so as far as a portal bar, I have no position either way. If it's an allowable MOS to add for other reasons, fine, (want to add it to the other 3000 articles tagged for WPEQ? Be my guest) But that isn't solving the issue now being raised. But the 500 page navbox transclusion is in fact highly appropriate and useful; navboxes serve a purpose distinct from both lists and categories, which is to aid readers in finding similar articles of interest. There must be a way to link to all other horse breed articles, and thus we use the equine template to link to the List of horse breeds, which is a simple and efficient way to do so, as we have over 400 breeds and types the alternative is a 400-item navbox because the "breed by nation" templates are, at best, insufficient, do not cover all breeds, and if we had one for every nation, well that's a bloated navbox too. The only other solution is to put List of horse breeds in the see also of 400+ articles, which is also ridiculous. People don't just want to find breeds from one nation, they want to learn about all the breeds, so to speak. These are a service to our readers. Also, linking list of horse breeds in the lead is not as good as linking to horse breed, which explains what a "breed" is... Montanabw(talk) 22:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
What you say is my understanding too, RexxS – navboxes don't display in mobile view. But I'm pretty sure that I'm not making up what I said – that the image was appearing in the app on my phone. I'd like to test that again to be sure, but I haven't come across a page that has (a) no image and (b) a navbox with an image in it – can you suggest one? That fat palomino mare was most certainly popping up all the time in hovercards, on any horse page that had no other image.
What I have been able to test (subjectively, on the devices that I use) is that the images in the portal do not get transcluded either on hovercards or in the app.
Montanabw, this template doesn't link any breed articles because there aren't any breeds listed in it. It links various general horse topics, and it's wholly appropriate for it to be on those pages. I'm not going to quote a guideline here because we both know who wrote it, but we also both know that there is pressure to remove navboxes from articles that don't appear in them. I'm suggesting the portal – which does, by the way, have a link to the list of horse breeds, in the Topics box – as a neat way of getting round that. As for deploying it on 3000 pages if there's consensus to do so, that's just the kind of totally straightforward task a bot could do with its hands tied behind its back. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The "bidirectional" issue, well, I don't feel that highly contentious concept is a good reason to remove the list from the navbox, (in fact, I hesitate to give in to such a "consensus" as it is a rather artificial one). Until or unless we actually have a true better option for allowing a person who finds one breed article to easily link to ALL the other breed articles (via the list, which is easier to navigate than the category), I most strongly oppose removing the template from the horse breeds articles. The "breeds by nation" templates are not an answer (though a link in each to the list of horse breeds might be a decent idea) As they only good for nations with only a few native breeds -- we've long discussed the problems with, to give two examples on opposite ends of the spectrum, the hundreds of breeds that could be part of a USA template or, in contrast, the five different nations that can legitimately claim the Lipizzaner.
My personal opinion is that the portal is unmaintained and though pretty and well set up for random info, as a navigation aid, it is pretty much useless... it is merely a "front page" to equine topics, but it contains no real useful set of "links to popular articles" or to the breeds list. My position is that if someone wants to enable a bot to transclude a link to the portal on every page tagged by WPEQ, I don't object, and I suppose that actually would probably be a nice thing to do, but it doesn't solve the navbox problem unless we also redo the portal. (Redoing the portal is a possibility, but I have no idea where to start... I maintained the rotating articles for a while after Dana boomer left, but the real work needs to be on the main page itself). So, we have two different issues here. Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)