Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine

Equine Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I've been rummaging through the articles on Template:FEI World Final and I'm finding a lot of excess information that doesn't need to be in an encyclopedia. Someone has been adding large tables of qualifying competitors, along with results tables for many of the preliminary competitions, and finally the winners (though not just the first 3 placings, often a long list of all competitors). Much of this information is a duplicate of what is available from fei.org, or some other "stats" websites. There is very little prose content; the creating wikipedian is duplicating their work from German-wiki, and their English is not very good.

What alerted me to this was a comment on a talk page asking what was meant by the strikethrough across competitor's names (no key, nothing in the content or talk page to explain it). Turns out, someone has been following the competitions and striking out competitors who had qualified, but didn't actually compete.

Why would we even list tables of qualifying competitors? Maybe list their names if they qualified (because that is an achievement, whether or not they actually compete in the finals), followed by the results of the competition. Some of the articles list huge tables keeping track of the "award points" from competition to competition. Come on, people, we don't need that level of detail in a Wikipedia article. That's what the FEI website is for. See also WP:NOTSTATS.

Here is an example of one of these articles with far more information than is necessary.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Horse leg protection § Merge proposal.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've been working on old pages without sources. I wonder if anyone here could help with adding suitable refs to Ben Faerie. Thanks JMWt (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]