→Are Vaulters Riders: Ah, the law, the law. |
→Thank you for your support: new section |
||
Line 698: | Line 698: | ||
::::::Well, in Florida, there is always a sign that warns you and after that, you are on your own and lawsuits are practically impossible. |
::::::Well, in Florida, there is always a sign that warns you and after that, you are on your own and lawsuits are practically impossible. |
||
:::::::Ah, yes, the south. Texas is now that way somewhat as well. Odd, in the northern plains, northern Rockies and especially the Pacific northwest, we have few or no signing requirements and a live-and-let-live attitude, but a very plaintiff-friendly environment. There's even a case out of Colorado where they ruled that a parent cannot sign away the right of a minor to sue for injuries sustained at a ski area. Kind of "it's your own fault unless it's someone else's fault." Odd juxtaposition, but then we westerners are kind of odd in general! LOL! [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]</sup> 02:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
:::::::Ah, yes, the south. Texas is now that way somewhat as well. Odd, in the northern plains, northern Rockies and especially the Pacific northwest, we have few or no signing requirements and a live-and-let-live attitude, but a very plaintiff-friendly environment. There's even a case out of Colorado where they ruled that a parent cannot sign away the right of a minor to sue for injuries sustained at a ski area. Kind of "it's your own fault unless it's someone else's fault." Odd juxtaposition, but then we westerners are kind of odd in general! LOL! [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]</sup> 02:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Thank you for your support == |
|||
It has been an interesting exercise. I'm not needed or wanted, but I'll not stress over it. Cheers! [[User:Cgoodwin|Cgoodwin]] ([[User talk:Cgoodwin|talk]]) 05:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:30, 3 August 2010
Archives |
---|
If people want to talk to me here, do so:
I sometimes archive and/or delete old stuff.
Amusing start to talk page
|
|
Different heading
off topic query by Talk Page Stalker and subsequent reply
|
---|
{{collapsetop|off topic query by Talk Page Stalker and subsequent reply}} followed by {{collapsebottom}} at the end. Just a minor tweak from your friendy talk page stalker. Gerardw (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC) |
Happy Montanabw's Day!
User:Montanabw has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from a sockpuppet
And per Lar's talk page comment, I guess I'm one of his talk page stalkers. Rather fitting lulz, given my history. Fear not, word on the street is that you're cool beans, so you've no need to worry about me.
Anyway, I saw that dialogue and dipped an oar into that article. I know boo about horses and their ailments, however. I've got the page watched and will help out as I can.
—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Jack Merridew 03:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Colitis-X
Thanks for the note. I have no idea about your history with Una and respect whatever you feel about that. I would just say that my interaction with her was quite positive, not in terms of (dis)agreement but in terms of improving wikipedia. That is what I felt about this story - that there were good faith (but perhaps clumsy) attempts to improve the article. We all make mistakes; I often get remarks on my blunders in materials science articles and am only glad when someone points me to them, not to mention if he/she patiently explains my wrongs :-). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
You're going to want to get ahold of...
This article:
- Olsen, Sandra L. (2006). "Early Horse Domestication: Weighing the Evidence". In Olsen, Sandral L., Susan Grant, Alice M. Choyke, Laszlo Bartosiewics (ed.). Horses and Humans: The Evolution of Human-Equine Relationships. British Archaelogical Reports International Series 1560. Oxford, UK: Archaeopress. ISBN 1-84171-990-0.
{{cite encyclopedia}}
: Text "pages81-113" ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
this also sucks...
...the fell pony article."Fells seem to have a sixth sense which alerts them to possible danger." I mean, really? Have no fear the Fell pony is here? Lol. I'm thinking about possibly dabbling in it a bit, but wanted to make sure that you or one of your cohorts didn't have some massive re-write in a sandbox somewhere.--Yohmom (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It would be great if you could do some work on this article. We have way too many breed articles on WP that are sure the breed can jump tall buildings in a single bound, and the Fell Pony is more than representative of that. It's not in any of my sandboxes at the moment... Dana boomer (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I dipped my toe in the water and boy was it freezing. I tried to tidy it up a bit. At least the worst bits. Pitke (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- The tidying up by Pitke did help, but what the article really needs is someone to sit down with a bunch of sources and completely re-write the entire article. Yohmom, I would love you see you do that - you did such a great job on Banker horse that I'm looking forward to seeing what you can do with another article! Dana boomer (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Rewriting? My words exactly. Too bad I'm supposed to fill up tomorrow and the day after with 16 hours of studying Chinese :P You know I'd love a chance to redo an article this sorry... Hopefully on Sunday there's still some final prettifying for me to do... Well anyways, I'm glad to hear it's not that bad now. Pitke (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- The tidying up by Pitke did help, but what the article really needs is someone to sit down with a bunch of sources and completely re-write the entire article. Yohmom, I would love you see you do that - you did such a great job on Banker horse that I'm looking forward to seeing what you can do with another article! Dana boomer (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I dipped my toe in the water and boy was it freezing. I tried to tidy it up a bit. At least the worst bits. Pitke (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Stud farm
If the introduction to a list of studs farm is written in the present tense, it should refer to present-day countries. I see that you have no problem with mentions of, say, Germany and Hungary, which did not exist as countries at the time of their studs' founding either. I'm getting very tired of your transparent anti-Slovenian agenda regarding the Lipizzan and your blatant hypocrisy. Please take your original interpretations elsewhere. Good day.--WorldWide Update (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- WorldWide Update, I have no idea why you are getting snarky at Montanabw. She's not the one who made the change that you are objecting to - it was another editor, see here. Also, please read WP:NPA - calling another editor hypocritical and accusing them of having an agenda is really uncalled for. Dana boomer (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I really have no agenda pro-or anti-Slovenia. And Dana is correct, a different editor (one who is well-respected for vandal patrol and an understanding of WP protocols, by the way) did the edits. What I do know is that Slovenia is not the only nation in the world, and everyone gets a fair shake. National pride is fine, and in some of these newly-independent republics, understandable from a psychological viewpoint, but not in line with WP's NPOV standard. Montanabw(talk) 19:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikigods?
Wikigods? PDCook (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Say what? The Arbiter★★★ 01:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the weird message. I should have said thanks for working on the Vladimir Littauer article. I've done what I can with it. Regards, PDCook (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Tongue in cheek. The "wikigods" seem to handle WP:MOS, which always seems to change as soon as I have figured out the current standard. (So this week are we using the serial comma or not?). Hence, like the Greek pantheon (gods), appears somewhat arbitrary to mere mortals and usually not worth challenging. LOL! Montanabw(talk) 16:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Ernst Lindenbauer
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Lindenbauer
We should translate that as well! --Andreas Hausberger (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- "We" huh? (grin). Montanabw(talk) 18:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Have you seen the Polak translation? --Andreas Hausberger (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
GA review for Lusitano
Hello, Montanabw. I have been reviewing Lusitano, and I noticed that you have made a substantial amount of contributions to the article. I thought I should contact you because I noticed several problems with the article that need to be addressed before the article can pass the review. I have noted the issues here: Talk:Lusitano/GA1. I will be watching for the articles revisions, and please feel free to ask questions or give your concerns on the talk page. --Tea with toast (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Sandboxes
Please have a look on all of my sandboxes and tell me what you think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Conversano_Isabella --Andreas Hausberger 18:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversano Isabella (talk • contribs)
- Will do and comments will be there. Montanabw(talk) 18:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! Andreas Hausberger 19:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversano Isabella (talk • contribs)
Finnhorse bombed again
More stuff for you to look at when you care to :) Found a good source, or at least much more exact than Arppe (and maybe Talaskivi too). Pitke (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hermesvilla
Please have a look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Conversano_Isabella/Hermesvilla_-_Sandbox Andreas Hausberger 15:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversano Isabella (talk • contribs)
- Have you seen my last edits? --Andreas Hausberger 16:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversano Isabella (talk • contribs)
- Ill trot over and take a peek. Been offline a bit more than usual lately. Montanabw(talk) 23:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Piber
Great Job! Though I would suggest to rename it to "Federal Stud Piber", don't you think so? In german it's "Bundesgestüt Piber". Another question: I talked to people from Piber about the wiki-article "Lipizzan" and the photo showing a "typical" lipizzan. On this photo is a lipizzan from Monterotondo with a rider on. It's simply an ugly photo! I asked the Piber stuff for a better one and they said yes sure. So, if I upload one of these photos to commons what about the copyrights. Federal Stud Piber holds the rights and is willing to publish on Wikipedia.--Andreas Hausberger 19:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree the Lipizzan photo is not the best, only maybe the best of what we have. Unfortunately, "copyrighted but OK to use on Wikipedia" isn't a free license for wikimedia commons, a photo has to be basically free to anyone for anything. The easiest way to do this is to release a photo into the public domain--but doing so means that anyone can do anything with it and never pay royalties or give attribution or anything. (an example is this image: File:Dr_Cook_BB_Western.JPG). The other acceptable method is to release a photo under the GDFL and CC licenses -- which basically say that a photographer can get credit for taking the photo, but that the image has to be free to anyone to use for anything, even for someone else to make money from. The young gray Lipizzan that illustrates Gray (horse) may be more suitable if you'd prefer that one as an interim solution. The horse is very nice, but young, without the fully white hair coat. (Personally, I got so fed up with finding photos of some things that I wanted to illustrate that I just got out my own camera and started taking amateur photos that I could own and then release any way I wanted. Example would be this image: File:SaddleUnderside.jpg.) Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- On the second issue, German and English flip their word order a lot, while I would go with what what the official version from the facility is, in English, we always say "The XYZ stud" not "Stud XYZ" Also, at this site, the tab at the top does say "Piber Federal Stud" which is grammatically correct English. We could rename the whole article "Piber Federal Stud" so as to later make room for someone to do an article about the village of Piber, I suppose...? Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Piber Federal Stud" is great and another article on Piber (the village) can be donne later.--Andreas Hausberger 07:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversano Isabella (talk • contribs)
- I am mildly confused. SHould I leave the article titled "Piber" or change its name now (as opposed to later) to "Piber Federal Stud?" Oh, and by the way, the article is in the "Did you know?" queue and will have a brief mention on the main page TOMORROW! (April 18)... they change them as the day goes on, but the queue says it will go up at 1:00 pm (13:00) London time...! Montanabw(talk) 02:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Piber DYK
OK but maybe you can sort through my old ones too :-) Victuallers (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Suggest you might like to look at here. Poor translation but Looks interesting and may provide a good hook... Oh and you search for "victu" in here ? Victuallers (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Follow up press release on the topic here. Sounds like no real threat, more of a bluff to me...sort of like threatening to close the fire department if the local mill levy doesn't pass. (LOL) Montanabw(talk) 18:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Re Spear Hills
Think you got this one wrong. Moorhead does indeed exist and in fact the Spear Hills are shown on the Moorhead Quad map. Moorhead as a village shows clearly on the quad. Although Brodus is indeed north of the Spear Hills, it is a long way north compared to Moorhead.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Broadus has about 600 people in it, and it's the biggest town in the county, so it's the best reference. Given the relative lack of relief (some nice badlands country down there, though) any significant elevation will be visible from many miles off. Oh, and no one in Montana says "village" either. In Powder River County, there ARE a couple wide spots in the road that might have a bar. My point is that if a community does not appear on the Montana road map, then no one is going to have any clue how to find something. It may appear on a quad, but in real life there could just be a sign on the railroad tracks by a weathered shed... Note this map, http://www.mdt.mt.gov/travinfo/docs/hwymap_cond.pdf which shows the KNOWN wide spots in the road like Olive (population zero), Biddle and Powderville. No Moorhead. Given that Broadus is about 40 miles from the Wyoming border and the Spear Hills are roughly on the border, it isn't that far--it's probably a 20 minute drive the way a person drives in that part of the state... Montanabw(talk) 22:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Piber
Materialscientist (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Request to publish image: Bosal on Horse
Hi,
I wanted to ask your permission to publish your picture of a palomino wearing a bosal for an article on bits and bridles. The article is slated for the June issue of the Northwest Horse Source, a regional all-breed magazine the covers Wash., Ore., Idaho, and parts of Western Montana and Northern Calif.
I'd like to include a photo credit if you wish to furnish that. This will be the "lead-in" picture for the article.
I am at your mercy on this one, we don't have much of an editorial budget. But I would be interested in publishing your story, if that's something you feel could benefit you. I find your work with Wikipedia intriguing and news worthy.
Deadline is later this week, so please let me know before Thurs., April 29.
Sincerely,
Gavin Ehringer, editor
Northwest Horse Source Magazine
- If you mean this picture, you can freely use the picture (as long as you include photo credit, as is necessitated by the licence). For further reference, all images as well as other files in Wikimedia Commons (See the Bosal bridle category for example, or Playing horses) are released under a free use license, or are Public Domain - that is, free to use. No permissions need to be asked. On the other hand, some files used in the English Wikipedia may be used under Fair Use circumstances; therefore you should check the licence of the picture if you wish to use it in the case you found it via a Wikipedia article instead of from the Commons. Pitke (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear Gavin, Pitke is correct that it is a free image with attribution per the license on the image. If you want to use my real name and such, (which would be very fun for me!) I avoid using my real name on wikipedia, so please click on the "E-mail this user" link to the left of this page and send me a message. Montanabw(talk) 21:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
You know how great the temptation is...
...to ramble on about how you should know better etc, with a few juicy excursions about how genetics goes at different levels in Paraguay and Kazakhstan and how terminology is really messed up if people from Sweden and India attempt to discuss bridle... But I'll just say this... Cremellos have pink skin, you silly thing :D Pitke (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- LOL! Technically, cremellos have "rosy" skin, not unpigmented "pink" skin -- as every cremello breeder will point out, adding that THEIR horses are not in fact at increased risk of sunburn! It's a subtle difference, though, and I should have explained myself better! ;-). Montanabw(talk) 21:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
standardbred
Hi. I saw your edit to the Hambletonian 10 page. I just wanted to let you know that "standardbred", and "thouroughbred", are types of horses, and not breed names. They are, as such, not capitalised. All the best-Mk5384 (User talk:Mk5384)
- Wrong. These are horse breeds and are to be capitalized. At least as long as all the other horse breeds are capitalized. And if you think none of them should be, well, we have nearly 400 articles plus thousands of cross-references that would need to be changed. So please stop changing the capitalization on these articles. Montanabw(talk) 18:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Thoroughbred", and "standardbred", are not capitalised. You said yourself, dictionaries list "thoroughbred", and "purebred", as synonyms. Are dictionaries no longer reliable sources? I have fixed the articles, again. If you continue to revert me, I am not going to get into an edit war with you. I will, however, return with reliable sources, to show that these names are not to be capitalised.Mk5384 (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are editing against consensus. This will be reported as vandalism if you continue. The Standardbred is a breed, the Thoroughbred is a breed. Please leave this be. Montanabw(talk) 19:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, I reverted myself, asshole. Secondly, WHERE, WHERE, WHERE, is this "consensus" you keep claiming? Third, I don't give a flying fuck if you report me for vandalism, murder, or anything in between. Vandalism and murder have something in common; I've never comitted either. The fact that you would threaten me with something so childish speaks volumes. Fourth, whilst you are welcome at my talkpage, if you template me again, the entire message will be summarily removed, unread. Fifth, I will, very shortly, provide reliable sources that show that I am right about this.Mk5384 (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are editing against consensus. This will be reported as vandalism if you continue. The Standardbred is a breed, the Thoroughbred is a breed. Please leave this be. Montanabw(talk) 19:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I invite you to refractor the above uncivil comments and threats. I gave you the gentlest of template warnings. If you review the edit history of the Thoroughbred article and the FA review, as well as actually read the article itself and review the footnotes, you will see this issue has been long decided. Now please cases such attacks. Montanabw(talk) 19:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Mk5384, Montana is correct that your last post above goes beyond the bounds of common civility. She is also correct that Thoroughbred and Standardbred are the names of breeds, not types, and as such are capitalized. For past discussions, see Talk:Go Man Go#Capitlization and the FAC for the Thoroughbred article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thoroughbred, where capitalization of breed names are discussed. The Thoroughbred FAC resulted in the expansion of the Thoroughbred#Terminology section, which now includes (with extensive referencing to reliable sources) discussion on when the term is capitalized and when it is not. Dana boomer (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I invite you to refractor the above uncivil comments and threats. I gave you the gentlest of template warnings. If you review the edit history of the Thoroughbred article and the FA review, as well as actually read the article itself and review the footnotes, you will see this issue has been long decided. Now please cases such attacks. Montanabw(talk) 19:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
According to Webster, when used in reference to horses it's capitalized:[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't realise that you were a woman. Under the circumstances, I should not have used such coarse language. That doesn't excuse the template or the baseless charge at ANI, mind you. But I make it a point not to use language like that in the presence of women.Mk5384 (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Discussion continued at User talk:Mk5384. Montanabw(talk) 02:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- There's a lot I could say in response to your post on my talk page. However, I find your desire for this to end commendable, and will therefore, restrain myself. Consider it ended. All the best-Mk5384 (It won't let me sign, for some reason.)
- Discussion continued at User talk:Mk5384. Montanabw(talk) 02:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if my move caused you extra work. The name horse chestnut refers to the tree to which it now points. As some one who is interested in horse you will know that a horse's chestnut is next to never called a horse chestnut.
There is a WP:RM on talk:horse chestnut (disambiguation) which was ignored by user:BD2412 moved (s)he the page on 9 January 2010. This page is part of the fallout from the flora guideline which until Feb this year was worded so that botanists could justify imposing Latin names on all plants. It seems that some of them want that to extend to redirects as well (perhaps the fear is that if the common name redirect to the tree then it undermines their case for using the Latin name, but that is only speculation as I have not asked them).
I can see from the that history of "chestnut (horse)" that it is a casualty of the flora wars because Una Smith had frequently used the flora guideline to support the move commonly named article (as used in reliable sources) to Latin names.
I see three possible solutions: (1) redirect as you have done -- the trouble is that it is subject to Una Smith or someone similar changing the redirect. (2) point the redirect to the dab page. (3) move the page Chestnut (horse anatomy) back to chestnut (horse). If you decide that 3 is the best option, I'll remove the history of chestnut (horse) so that you can do it. -- PBS (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- PBS has a long history of attributing problems to the flora guideline, but it seems to me in this case that Una was yet again following her own peculiar views on disambiguation, views that are rejected by many plant editors.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter to me as long as people can find the articles on Chestnut-colored horses and chestnuts on horse's legs, I CAN see someone typing "horse chestnut" instead of "chestnut horse" as a search term. I want to stay out of the disambig issues. I fixed a couple of dabs, I am of mixed feelings on Chestnut (horse)...arguably, it could be a dab to both chestnut horse articles, but there is probably a point at which dabs get out of control. I shall defer to the plant experts and the dab experts. Montanabw(talk) 02:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Amazing
I was amazed to discover there was no article on J.K. Ralson, so I wrote one this weekend and listed at DYK. See J. K. Ralston. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Cool! Nice job, too! Montanabw(talk) 03:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fantastic looking article, very nice indeed! Dreadstar ☥ 04:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Another I'd like to see, but have not yet found the time/motivation to do it myself is photographer L.A. Huffman (aka Laton Alton Huffman? I've also wanted to do one on Fannie Sperry Steele, but again, time, motivation, other fish to fry. Montanabw(talk) 17:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fantastic looking article, very nice indeed! Dreadstar ☥ 04:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Varian
Hey! Just checked out the new article on Varian, per your request. It looks really good! You've got a good batch of sources; if you took it to GAN some reviewers might complain about the number of them that are to Varian's website, but I think most of the stuff that is sourced there would be hard to find elsewhere, and from my quick read it didn't look too promotional. Don't think you should have any trouble from the new page patrollers on this one :) Nice work - Dana boomer (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dana. I was concerned about sounding too promotional. It's trickier than I thought to avoid it when there isn't really anything horribly controversial about someone and one is also a bit nervous doing a BLP because you ARE potentially far more accountable than when writing about other topics! =:-O I agree with the citing issue. When possible, I was/am trying to swap out footnotes from the Varian site if they had info I could find elsewhere (two of her "horse biographies" are actually verbatim from the Carpenter book, it would have saved me a lot of time had the webmaster on the site said as much... and I think some of the other articles are also reprints from magazine articles, I know one author is well-known for publishing in a certain magazine a lot... :-P But it IS true that a lot of stuff is hard to find elsewhere, I mean, the site also has the full text of her acceptance speech at the Cowgirl Hall of Fame, and the Hall of Fame site itself positively SUCKS for having decent biographical material for her on its web site, I was rather frustrated. I have another hardcopy book I can check for info that might be able to replace a few more web site cites, and maybe when she returns from her trip Ealdgyth may also have some source material. I don't see this one ever getting to FA for a lot of reasons, but I might try to tackle a GA once it settles in a bit. It is in the DYK queue. Montanabw(talk) 05:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Beet Pulp
Beet pulp article and dry foods section on the choke article looks much better now! Thank you. Though I don't think that myth is too strong a word, since the Alberta Government source title is 'Myths and Misconceptions' the article is much less hearsay now. There's apparently quite a few beet pulp myths about but I think you covered all the ones I know of quite nicely. Feel free to delete this section, just wanted to thank you!
RestlessThoughts (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. The main thing with "myth" is being very careful -- it IS a myth that beet pulp will swell up and make the horse's stomach explode! (LOL?) But to say that it's a "myth" that horses can choke on it has to be handled a bit more carefully -- it's not that horses have NEVER choked on beet pulp, it's just that they aren't any more likely to choke on beet pulp than any other dry food when things line up the wrong way (bolting, not enough water, etc...) ... That Alberta article is very useful, but the snappy title adds an element of opinion that wikipedia probably needs to handle with a bit more caution, so that was my main focus. I see the other editors went in and did some nice cleanup too. Montanabw(talk) 19:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Pack station
Would you agree to a subsection called "Pack stations in the United States", and perhaps other editors could add "Pack stations in Australia" or "Pack stations in Canada" or wherever? Is it really accurate that Australian pack stations routinely load their mules with 300 lbs of freight? As for the explanation "Toss potentially commercial links", that seems a bit judgmental. I specifically did not add links to any commercial pack station websites. Instead, I included a link to a trade association of a number of pack stations, and also a not for profit website that recounts the history of that part of California and includes a list of pack stations. I think the article would be better if it had similar links for Australia, Canada and any other country that have pack stations. External links, it seems to me, help people delve more deeply into a subject. By the way, you kept the reference book I added including the page reference to the research that Norman Livermore did on pack stations, but removed mention of Mr. Livermore, a very notable and accomplished man in many fields, not just pack stations. Perhaps we can work together to improve the article. Cullen328 (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Thought you may enjoy a new article on a trail-blazing woman...new article and DYK if you care to help improve. Up on July 6th, anniversary of the court ruling! — Rlevse • Talk • 01:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I apologise
I apologise to you for calling you an asshole. This goes beyond my apology for swearing at a woman; I apologise for doing it at all. As I discussed on Guy's talk page, I have been reflecting on things that have taken place here. I was following the very flawed logic that, "two wrongs make it even". Also, as I felt that you owed me an apology, I had decided that I would refrain from apologising to you, unless you would first offer an apology of your own. This too, is flawed thinking. I shouldn't have said that to you, and whether or not you apologise to me is irrevalant. I'm not sure why felt that you were "about to come under attack". I asked Guy to review the incident, not on the basis of having fodder to criticise, or attack you, should he side with me, but to illustrate my point to him that I feel I have (perhaps largely through my own doing) been unfairly characterised as "completely in the wrong about everything". Note that I only asked for his opinion, and said that I would do my best to consider it carefully, regardless of what he said. Also note that my request was irrespective of my intention to apologise. One other thing. As we know, when I realised that you were a woman, I apologised to you for my use of language. I seem to have caught more flack for this, than the original incident. I would just like to state, for the record, that this was not an attempt to be a condescending alpha male, but rather a genuine attempt to be a gentleman. Whilst I am obviously capable of swearing like a drunken sailor, I do attempt to observe custody of the tounge in the presence of women, and I certainly do not make a habit of directing said language at women. In any case, I will close as I began. I apologise for calling you an asshole.Mk5384 (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Apology for use of intemperate language accepted. I have been known to use intemperate language myself and on occasion, to fail to edit a comment prior to hitting "save" or "send", so your apology is gracious and accepted. The part of this mess I can easily acknowledge as an error on my part is that I paid no attention to your amount of prior editing before I slapped the template on your talk page. That said, it was intended to be the mildest possible template, though a newcomer template was not the best to use. I do wish that wikipedia had a trout slap template! (smile) As for the rest, the underlying issue was a simple disagreement over a fairly minor issue. My part in that which I am willing to acknowledge is that I was cranky and tired of dealing with that particular issue because I had already dealt with it several times in the past (with my view prevailing every time), so I may have deserved a trout slap myself for a lack of patience. I hope this clears the air. Montanabw(talk) 23:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. Let's chalk it up to a misunderstanding, and pick up where we left off, after we had both agreed to drop the issue. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. As my user page states, I am open to being trout slapped. In an attempt to close an unplesant issue with a soupcon of levity, I have gone ahead and trout slapped myself.Mk5384 (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- And I found the trout slapping template! I don't know if it's relevant here, but I also ran across Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, which, given my area of interest, is somehow, oddly, appropriate. Montanabw(talk) 07:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
DYK tidbits
I just put an article on a Montana wilderness as the lead DYK into prep 2. My trails DYK is in queue (approved by White Shadow), and I have an approved DYK on the noms page about Catherine Pollard (Scouting), the first female Scoutmaster in the Boy Scouts of America. Just thought you may like to know. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll peek. Thanks! I did take a look at the Pollard piece, nicely done! Montanabw(talk) 06:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Curious
I have to wonder why you would post a note to Jack Merridew that directs him to a 7 month old discussion that involved me and you and was responded to by Lar and is essentially a dead thread. What's the point? Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Jack's a good egg and I wasn't happy to see the ANI. The discussion I posted shows nothing more than your pattern when in disagreement with someone who is not involved in your current spat. It stands for what it says, however others wish to interpret it one way or the other. Montanabw(talk) 16:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Terima kasih. I would have thought that "FYI of something you might be interested in seeing." was pretty clear. I do find it interesting; and useful. You ever read meatball:DefendEachOther? You're obviously familiar with the notion ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yep. Others have lent me a hand sometimes when much needed. Actions speak for themselves, but wikipedia is a big place and hard to find all that is needed. I've spent a lot of time looking at my own triggers and issues, I find it useful to look at patterns. (My own pattern is revert first, discuss later, which occasionally gets too bitey, hence I have self-added the trout-slap option to my user page) Montanabw(talk) 21:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- But do you get trouted much? And if so, is it genuinely appropriate? fyi, AN/I just scuttled the mediation effort and moved things further towards real resolution. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think once in four years and deservedly, if I recall! ;-) That said, usually the people who get really mad at me don't trout me, (which might be surprisingly successful if they but gave it a whirl) instead they claim that my willingness to be trouted is simply an evil ploy on my part that allows me to revert their edits and that I am actually the infamous Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet. But then, I think Jack gets that too. Sigh. Josette, I like the way you recently were so very reticent to offer your true feelings on a particular matter! :-) Montanabw(talk) 03:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ya know, we have bigger "fish" these days. And I don't eat the evil kittens, I eat the evil adult
PussiesCats ;) I gave your Sheila a poke; leveled-up, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ya know, we have bigger "fish" these days. And I don't eat the evil kittens, I eat the evil adult
- Sure; just knock-off the usual template; which I made some adjustment to a while ago. I also did the version of the user box that pre-loads the trout to talk pages. I'm get to it; good idea. I made a user box last week: {{user wikipedia/WikiZombie}}. No one seems to be up for using it, yet. It has a built-in resolution mechanism, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Referencing articles
Hi Montanabw I noticed that you mentioned to another editor that we do not, or should not put references in the lead sections of articles, and that you cite MOS as a guideline. For my part, I have always been very careful to source lead sections according to the instructions in WP:LEAD: The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate... Clearly there seems to be an ambiguity here that is confusing editors. It's probably due to the rather open and vague explanation further down in the same guideline article at: WP:LEADCITE. A more clear rule, I think you will agree, would be more helpful if it were to be established. Maybe together we can find a solution, perhaps per RfC, that will clear up any misinterpretations and reinforce the existing guidelines to be more helpful. Personally, I ambivalent on this, and thus indifferent to an outcome, but the alternative - having a debate over the referencing for each individual article, as the guideline possibly suggests - is, in my opinion, counter productive..--Kudpung (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The general rule has additional nuances. Specifically, anything in the lead must be sourced, yes, but not necessarily footnoted. Would this be the way to explain it: If something is in the lead, it does not need a footnote THERE provided that the same information appears in the body text of the article with appropriate footnotes in THE OTHER location. The corrolary would therefore be that material in the lead not mentioned or sourced elsewhere DOES need a footnote. That make any kind of sense? Montanabw(talk) 03:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well gee, then how the heck did I manage to be a major contributer to 12 GAs and 2 FAs, none of which have ONE SINGLE FOOTNOTE in the lead? Or, to take someone else's recent FA, note Horses in World War I -- which I followed but did not take any leadership in creating -- went GA, FA and A-Class with the Military History WikiProject, which is the single most fussy, rules-bound group in all of wikipedia. Not. One. Single. Footnote. In. The. Lead. Sorry, that was a bit sarcastic, I apologize for being a bit bitey, but frankly, on this one, I am right. Or at least, if I am wrong, so are a lot of FA reviewers. It's all about the quality of the sourcing in the overall article, not the footnotes in the lead. Montanabw(talk) 05:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Then you've been lucky and maybe I ought to ask you to review the next bunch of GAs for our project articles ;) You know, I don't go around looking for trouble or for pages to clean up, but I get around a lot, and I seem to stumble on more than my fair share of self-appointed Wiki policemen, (and women), GA reviewers who go right OTT, and arrogant little teenagers. So I generally go WP:BOLD and get on, do what I think is right, and move on. Be honest, if I'd slapped a friendly, 'Hey guys, how about cleaning this page up a bit?' I would still have suffered tirades from somebody. Anyway, what I usually say is: how about simply getting back to what we know we are doing best: improving the Wikipedia?--Kudpung (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree wholeheartedly that there is a certain presence of folks with well, if they aren't actually arrogant teenagers, that IS how they act. And it is tough to avoid unleashing a tirade somewhere when one is bold. But you handled this well, and I tipped off the other editor that we may want to clean up things over there a bit, so all's well that ends well. Any of us can be caught on a bad day, which is why I have activated the trout-slapping option on my talk page here! (grin). No harm, no foul and yes, if you ever want a pre-GA review, I'd be glad to take a basic glance and I know some good folks who can catch the little stuff that often hangs things up. I also highly recommend giving a discreet heads up to the known-good reviewers once you put in the GA nom, if they can't do it themselves, they may in turn put in the discreet word to someone else to take a peek. So yes, ONWARD! Montanabw(talk) 00:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. First, I commend you both for your good faith dialogue and constructive approach. If Wikipedia survives over time, it will be on the basis of such efforts. The editor Kudpung was referring to was me, and I thank Kudpung for leaving it to me to choose whether or not to identify myself. At the time, I did note some inconsistencies. I noted for example, that the Finnhorse article already had the term 'coldblood', since 12 November 2008 Regarding lead citations, I noted that Morgan horse had one since 24 June 2006, with Montanabw improving the format on 29 April 2007. I noted too, Montanabw's citation additions to the lead of Mesaoud on 31 January 2007. I noted also the following lead citations: Citations in Equine nutrition since Montanabw's fix in February 2007; Two citations in the Horse article since 12 February 2009, although not at time of GA listing on 30 September 2008; several citations in Osteochondritis dissecans since the first addition on 29 August 2008, and eight citations around the time of achieving FA status in March 2009. I did of course wonder what to make of this discrepancy, as might someone noticing that of the 12 GA articles, two do in fact have citations in the lead. The Horse article didn't have any lead citations at time of the GA listing on 30 September 2008. But Equine nutrition had seven at time of its March 2007 GA review period, and eight at time of retaining GA status on 4 July 2009.
However, on looking further into contributions and editor dynamics, it was evident that the horse articles had a core of hardworking, enthusiastic editors. The history of the horse article for example is particularly impressive, and shows that the editors had to deal with more than their share of vandalism. So on reflection, I considered that the essence of the message to me was not 'keep out from our clique', but rather, 'don't just barge in to a constructively working dynamic with a new approach without some dialogue'. I realised too that one of the things that a group of editors has to figure out is whether they've encountered good faith editing or vandalism. History alone provides the differentiating evidence. So I made a few contributions here and there, learned a few things, and kept moving forward. I haven't by the way forgotten Montanabw's invitation to contribute to the horse projects. If I remain in Wikipedia long enough, I expect to do so.
Regarding the use, or not use of citations in the lead, at time of considering Montanabw's message, I came to a similar conclusion to that stated above. One could phrase it something like the following heuristic.
- If a given lead content is adequately elaborated on and sourced within the article,
- then citation within the lead is contraindicated,
- else cite lead content.
As for wording of WP polices, it's pretty hard to get these things 'just right' I think, because not only is it impossible to be exhuastively descriptive, but the more comprehensively descriptive we become, the less workable the solutions (cf the problem of the Grouch Marx Effect). The best one can do is have guidelines based on logically coherent heuristics, and allow enough flexibility for editors to problem-solve as a community. Some such collaborations will result in articles with citations in the leads, and some not. But there's no harm in a bit of heterogeneity. Indeed, homogeneity is the downfall of many systems, be they biological, social, organisational, etc. So heterogeneity, and enthusiasm of the kind I mention above, coupled with good faith, go a long way. And both editors above have a good track record in this department, for which I commend you. Kind Regards Wotnow (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
New article on a Scouter, psychiatrist, and author. Very interesting. Pls help improve. Up for DYK too. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Sheila Varian
Seen your post on Rlevse's talkpage and wanted to give you a couple tips that helped me just a couple months ago in my first GA. First, have the article peer reviewed. This gives you tons of good advice on how to improve the article. The peer reviewer will work with you while you get everything updated. Once that is done, then get a couple independent reviews. User:Ruhrfisch, User:Wehwalt and User:Brianboulton are great reviewers and can help immensely. Then, when all that is done, then you take it to WP:GA. Even at GA you may have to do a little tinkering (it will be reviewed yet again). It is ALOT of work, but when it is all over, it is totally worth it. Also, don't feel you can only get GA status. With the right amount of work, any page can get FA status. Just keep at it. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Good luck. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, though, um, I have had several GAs in the past, three almost completely on my own, the rest in collaboration with others. I DO appreciate your comments but would appreciate more specifics on the article in question because I am too close to it to evaluate it properly -- I think certain things are just dandy that suck, and I think things suck that others consider just dandy! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 16:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oooh, my apologizes. I thought this was your first GA. My goof. I don't know much about horses or horse breeding, but if you contact those three editors above I listed, they could give you an independent review and evaluate the article way better than I ever could. Sorry I can't be more help there. My area of expertise is towns/cities, roads and radio/television stations. I did, though give a look see to the article and have one place that needs a bit of work. The picture of Sheila Varian is slightly blurry, is there a better image you have (or possibly could take) of Ms. Varian? Good luck on the GA and if I can be of more assistance, I will certainly try. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- My less blurry ones aren't as friendly-looking, this was the only one I took where she was actually smiling. Unfortunately, I live too far away to go back and do retakes. Don't think there's anything in the public domain, either. If you do find something though, give me a shout! Montanabw(talk) 22:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hay (is for horses;), I've shoved some of the refs in a better direction. I've also some ideas on how to better integrate the sources and references sections and will give them shoves, too. Much of the intent here is to get the cite templates into one group and out of the prose; just named-refs inline. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Groovy, I hate doing refs, my eyes just boggle. Anything helpful helps! Montanabw(talk) 22:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- An appropriate attitude; pass it on. Use a cluestickclue stick on those who do not listen ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Talk page modification
Just so you know, I added Troutme to your talk page. I was doing something else and I figured you might want that. If not, sorry. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Rodeo
Hi, actually there have only been two three very short posts on the talk page since you archived it nine months ago ;) --Kudpung (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Finnhorse
Your friend is doing an excellent job, really, but could you suggest to him/her that they stop using the page source code as a forum. I actually came there to day to see if I could help out with a copyedit or two but I gave up when I opened the editing window. I think any suggestions to use the talk page for comments would be much better, and received in more GF, if they came from you - you're rather more tactful than I am.--Kudpung (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm trying to cut down unnecessary edits by dropping additional info at points where I have a hunch Montanabw is going to ask things. It's true that some of the hidden commentaries have gone too far (like the warmblood thing, and some others about breeds) though... I'll remind myself to try and remember the talk page also exists :) If you care, it'd be helpful to have even one subsection checked over... Don't want to be mean or anything, but I feel kinda proud you gave up X3 Pitke (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Kudpung. What we have here is an article that only had two people working on it for the past year or so and hence the use of quick little inline hidden text was a fast way to explain the various small changes going on without need for lengthy talk page discussions that require statements like "in the second sentence of the third paragraph of the fourth subsection..." to make any sense (grin). Usually, once the messages that are conversational have been read, they are tossed. Remaining hidden comments flag areas that still need more work and make them easier to locate. This may not be standard wiki protocol, but it's BOLD and it works extremely well when there is a big article improvement push; the same technique worked will for a 4 or 5 person team when we took Thoroughbred to GA. Perhaps what we could do here is to ask you to do a review for us when Pitke thinks it's ready for GA as what you spot will no doubt also be what a GA reviewer will comment upon. However, we aren't quite there yet, so your patience for now will be appreciated! Montanabw(talk) 00:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I didn't want to sound picky. I guess that I tend now to find the faults with editors that people massacred me for when I first joined WP years ago. I don't have a huge edit count specifically because I spend hours working on very small details, but it doesn't mean I'm any less experienced or know less about the rules than a person who has sixty FAs, 200 GAs, and half a million edits. You're probably right about a peer review - because I know absolutely nothing about horses, I'm not distracted when I'm checking for prose, grammar, and structure. Let me know if and when you're ready.--Kudpung (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Check out ....
File:Toweroflondonhorsemuzzle.jpg or File:Toweroflondonsaddlepossiblyorderofthedragon.jpg or File:Toweroflondonhorsebitprobablyhenryviii.jpg. Obviously I'm starting on the uploading of the thousands of shots I took in Europe... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Way cool...want to figure out a way to pop that bit photo into curb bit for us? Maybe also to Horses in the Middle Ages. Got more?? Montanabw(talk) 23:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Very cool! Looking forward to seeing the rest... Dana boomer (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, they are going to be interspersed with all the bishop's tombs and other scenery that I took also. I did take a LOT of horse related photos (no actual horses, weirdly, just horse stuff). Some stuff from the Elgin Marbles, some stuff from the Pergamon Altar, some stuff from Assyria, lots of bits and bit parts, other fun stuff... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, organized a bit this morning, the relevant subpages will be horse stuff and horses and unorganized bits for now. I'll probably have a subpage for "horses in art" and "historical photos and prints of horses" later, once I get more motivated to organize more. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- great. Already added the stirrup pic to stirrup, it's perfect! Also, check the cats your horse photos got popped into, some may be iffy, the commons folks doing cat sorting are doing a pretty good job, but they are shooting about 80%. Montanabw(talk) 18:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
White horse (mythology) reply
Hi Montanabw, so sorry for the long delay in getting back to you. I haven't been here for a while. For what it's worth, I would have agreed with putting the information on a separate page or section, but since it couldn't be confirmed, I think it was a good idea to pull it. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's a new article I created. Please help improve it. It's also up for DYK for 24 July. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Wishfulness or facts - a Brown story (with over 80% more numbers!)
IMHO, I find the distinctions between dark bay, "sooty" bay, and "seal brown" to be kind of annoying. Apparently there is a "seal brown" test, and I agree that there is sootiness clearly visible in other colors, but I still do not fully really get this or have a handle on how much of this is genetically proven and how much is wishful thinking... (partly reflecting my annoyance of those who like to market dark bays as "black bays"--as if they are more likely to produce black than others, which they are not... ). OK to move this to my wiki talk page to chat more or just move it to the discussion page here... Montanabw (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have to comment what you said about marketing brown horses by saying they are more likely to produce black. Under certain circumstances, they are. 1) premise: parent A is capable of producing black non-affected (that is to say, not HZ for grey, silver, cream etc, and carries Aa) 2) premise: the brown parent (parent B) is a true brown (as opposed to genetically non-brown mimics), but its (or parent C's) precise genotype in the agouti allele is not known. 3) premise: brown is a colouration genetically separate from black and bay; four alleles of the Agouti gene exist, responsible for wildtype bay (A+), bay (AA), brown (At), and black (Aa) phenotypes, A+ being primary dominant, AA secondary dominant, At tertiary dominant and Aa recessive (which I believe is the way science sees it these days). If premise 1 fails, no combination can produce black offspring. If premise 3 fails, the basis of the calculus is faulty. Premise 2 is there for "realism" (to simulate a situation where a stallion is not tested for colour). Illustration time. HZ stands for homozygous. Pitke (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- For simplicity's sake, there will be only 2x3 series, and parents will mostly be HZ for EE. No parent will be a carrier of dun, cream, silver, grey or other additional factors.
|
|
- Thus I dare claim that a brown horse may be more likely to breed black than a non-At brown bay, wildtype or not. Pitke (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Here's why I beg to differ. First off, BOTH parents each carry two alleles for each gene and will each contribute ONE to their offspring, so I dread to say this, but I think your chart is oversimplified! ( =:-O ) This is complicated by your use of totally different coding for genetic alleles than what I use, but we'll figure that out. In my examples, black is created by the E allele (E) and bay by the Agoti allele (A). For purpose of discussion, capitals mean (E and A) dominant alleles, lower case (e and a) meaning recessive alleles-- (which is the way I've learned to discuss genetics and how it is used in the materials at UC Davis, where I get most of my info) Thus a black horse is EEaa or Eeaa, (and this is regardless of other modifiers for sooty or fading or whatever on either the extension (E) allele or the agouti (A) allele.) (Also agreed: we aren't going into the dilution alleles here, because they are completely different modifiers added on top of these base genes). Bays of all variations are EEAA, EeAa, EeAA or EEAa; in other words, they have at least one allele of dominant Extension and one of dominant Agouti, whether homozygous or heterozygous. Thus, it seems to me that most of the coding for "wildtype" or "brown" or "sooty" or whatever variation on bay is irrelevant as to whether a horse can throw black. A black horse does not have the dominant Agouti allele that suppresses the red (e) allele to the points. Beginning and end of story. Thus, a bay/brown/whatever-with black mane and brownish-or reddish coat always MUST carry at least one copy of E (EE or Ee) in order for black points in the first place, and thus could throw a black if it is also Aa, depending on the genetics of the other parent. (A bay that is AA will never throw a black, because Agouti is dominant over the Extension allele) Further, all these wildtype and whatever other variants, with the exception of "seal brown" (and I am not 100% sure of how good that lab is that has that test) are NOT proven yet by DNA tests locating the actual genes, as far as I know (If I'm wrong, please provide sources; I do primarily go with what's at UC Davis, maybe the European labs do have such tests). All the other proposed (but not proven) modifiers of the Extension or Agouti bay coat alleles don't change the fact that there's ALWAYS a black (E) gene in there. So therefore, any bay-type horse, regardless of all the little superscript letters that might be added to its base A allele -- is no more likely than any other kind of bay[type horse to throw black, as it's all in how the primary genes line up: AA=never, Aa=maybe. EE or Ee= possibility of black, depending on other genes, ee = black never possible.
Let's take examples of just bays. Remember that chestnuts can carry agouti (A) because it's masked on a red horse:
- AAEE x AAEE= 100% bay, no possibility of black or chestnut
- AaEE x AAEE= 100% bay no possibility of black or chestnut
- AaEe x AAEe = Offspring possible: AAEE, AaEe, AAEe, AaEE (all bays) Aaee =chestnut or AAee=chestnut but black not possible (no aa combo possible). I think that works out 75% bay, 25% chestnut.
- AaEe x AaEe = 50% bay (AAEE, AaEE or AaEe), not sure how the percentages crunch, but chestnut possible with (AAee, Aaee aaee), black possible with (aaEe, aaEE) Traditionally this combo is over simplified as 50% bay, 25% chestnut and 25% black, but I don't see the combos actually working out that way statistically. but 50% of throwing A and 50% chance of throwing the E allele, so more bays than anything else
Now let's take chestnuts (eeaa or eeAa or eeAA) and blacks (EEaa or Eeaa): Chestnut without Agouti x black eeaa x heterozygous black (Eeaa) = 50% black, 50 % chestnut eeaa x homozygous EEaa = 100% black These two above combinations of parents will never produce a bay
Chestnut with masked agouti x black: eeAa x Eeaa= Black, chestnut or bay possible here (I won't bank on my math, but I think 25% probability of bay, must get both E and A, 25% probability of black, must get E and not A, 50% chestnut, as it doesn't matter if A is passed on or not) eeAax EEaa= 50% black, 50% bay, no possibility of chestnut --(E) is always passed on eeAA x Eeaa = 50% bay, 50% chestnut, no possibility of black --(A) is always passed on eeAA x EEaa= 100% bay
I'm sure I missed something here, but I hope this made sense. For example, this dark bay horse has thrown black offspring, but so has this blood bay horse. So, now can both of our heads explode? :-D Montanabw(talk) 01:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I just explained way up there the (currently prevalent?) theory about multiple degree dominant alleles of the Agouti gene, which would have, in this case, not two (black and bay), but four alleles. Thus just A and a aren't enough to mark them. AA is the longer way to say A, meaning "the A allele of the A locus" (locus being the normal letter and the allele the sup one). Just a quick remark before I dash off to work, will come back for more discussion. Pitke (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I actually think the answer to your question is, no, not current, some of the stuff you have is now outdated since the (recent) mapping of the horse genome, just not sure how much. One thing sure: Agouti doesn't "make" black color, it just suppresses it to the points. (The last four years of equine genetics has been a roller coaster ride!) UC Davis intro here,better page about the tests here, is my main source of info, and their site explains E and A as I understand them. (Their main page stuff on Overo is wrong and in need of updating, and they weasel a bit even on admitting their own lethal white test IS a frame overo test -- see the lethal white syndrome article if you care for details. I think they are politically sucking up to the APHA, but I digress) Maybe peek at Equine coat color genetics and see what you think of what's there too. Also read that Agouti article linked above. Now, I'm going to oversimplify so I can understand myself: Essentially, I think what you call Aa "recessive" is what I am calling "a" or, in other words, whatever happens when the agouti allele is recessive or switched "off" (as in a black horse) No suppression of black color to the points. However, to get a black horse, you also MUST have the dominant "E" switched "on"; otherwise you have a chestnut (e). Now, you tell me if what you call "true brown" At, is the same as what we have in the seal brown (horse) article, for which there appears to be a DNA test. ( And here's the seal brown (they call it At) test.) Also note that the whole thing about some extension genes being able to override Agouti has apparently been disproven as explained here I do "get" what you call a "wild" bay (i.e. not a lot of black on the legs), but I don't think there is a DNA test for it yet. And to be clear what shade do you call a "bay" AA? For example, would that fit this horse, which, shade wise, I classify as a classic bay or a "blood bay." OK, getting rummy now, my eyes crossed and my brain just went on strike! Back to you! Montanabw(talk) 03:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Random note. What makes you think I don't know that E (instead of A) activates the ability to create black pigment? Pitke (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC) ← Rhetorical question, me hoping we could stay on the same level of genetics without dropping back to the basics of the basics whenever our views differ. Comments later when I have the energy to look into it.Pitke (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not an insult, more a question and wondering why it was left out of the mix, as it plays a role here. I for one find genetics pretty daunting, and we don't use the same lingo. (It seemed that when you said "black (Aa)" you were arguing that recessive a = black, which is doesn't, Agouti has nothing to do with black as I understand it, Agouti merely suppresses black when present) Also wondered if you are arguing that E can somehow trump dominant A and throw a black with some dominant A allele, which, at least, the way I understood the black DNA test, is impossible. If A is present -- in any form (other than recessive a) --then you have bay (in some form), not black. I guess my point is that I cannot see how any Aa bay is more likely to throw black than any other kind of Aa bay, (At, or whatever) and no AA bay could ever throw black. No one seems to have sootiness, or flaxen, or liver chestnut figured out yet, and even the seal brown test has to first test for Agouti...
- Ok, I think I see the problem here. Well, at least one of them. I'll try to keep this simple and clear.
- "Locus" means a precise place of the genome. Every locus is responsible for something (e.g., the "Extension" locus is responsible for whether a horse can have black pigment or not, the "Agouti" locus being responsible for whether the black pigment (if it's present) is restricted, and to what degree). We agree on this.
- "Allele" means a version of a gene, located at a certain locus. For example, the Extension locus has alleles E (allows for black pigment production) and e (no black pigment produced). We agree on this.
- Where we part ways: I use the more exact way of marking genotypes, that tells both the locus (such as A for "Agouti") and the alleles (such as A for "Agouti - bay"). Where Montanabw would use "AA" to denote a horse homozygous for the A allele of the A locus, I would use "AAAA". I find this way more useful when it comes to loci with more than two alleles (such as Agouti, which has + (universal allele mark for the wildtype allele), A, t and a). When discussing loci with two known/proposed alleles (such as Dun, which has + (dun), and n (not dun)), I don't find the mark-up necessary or even useful.
- Alleles come in pairs, and dominance determines which allele "wins": for example, E is dominant over e, so both EE and Ee genotype horses are genetically capable of producing black pigment, whereas a ee genotype horse is not.
- Where we part ways: I think of the Agouti locus as having four alleles. In addition to the A and a ones that "everyone" knows:
- Sponenberg proposes (1996) a wildtype Agouti allele (+), responsible for a bay-like (but stronger) restriction of black, dominant over the A (bay) and a (non-restricted black) alleles. This seems widely accepted/unopposed, if we're not counting the (vast) majority (?) of people who don't make a distinction between a bay and a wildtype bay.
- The "brown Agouti allele (t)" (the t allele being responsible for the only slightly restricted black phenotype, and being dominant over the a allele but recessive for the + and A alleles (or the A allele if one wants to ignore +)) theory was widely supported, but isn't any more after brown horses, when bred to each other, were found to sometimes produce bay offspring (according to the theory, this should be impossible). Furugren points out (2000) that the distinction between a dark bay (Pitke: maybe really really sooty too?) and a brown is all but clear. This article mentions the At theory, but does not cite its source.
- Ok, I think I see the problem here. Well, at least one of them. I'll try to keep this simple and clear.
- For my own ease, I call the Agouti allele a "black" instead of "unrestricted black if E present" or anything such, just because if I called it that, I would feel the need to add such redundant disclaimers everywhere, and call, for example, the Agouti allele A "black (if E but no Z or Cr present) restricted to points"... I will also call, if needed, the Extension allele E "black" (as opposed to "black pigment producable") and the e allele "non-black". And please, no rants over how "non-black" is not a horse colour recognised anywhere in the States :P Pitke (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- The E locus actually is included in the calculations, I wonder how you could have missed it.
- With "bay" (or AA_), when I talk genetics, I mean horses like, but not strictly restricted to this. Pitke (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC) And ignore additional info (sooty, blood, light, etc) about the shade. Which of course means that I think of the wildtype bay as a different colour than the bay, not as one of its shades. Pitke (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Here, a 4-allele chart for your convenience
Here's something for you, copied from the Finnish Equine colours article. It shows how the 4-way agouti locus proposedly behaves. The table OF COURSE supposes the horse has the E allele and can produce black pigment. Pitke (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Locus A | ||||
X | A+ | AA | At | Aa |
A+ | A+A+ wildtype bay |
A+AA wildtype bay |
A+At wildtype bay |
A+Aa wildtype bay |
AA | A+AA wildtype bay |
AAAA bay |
AAAt bay |
AAAa bay |
At | A+At wildtype bay |
AAAt bay |
AtAt brown |
AtAa brown |
Aa | A+Aa wildtype bay |
AAAa bay |
AtAa brown |
Aaaa black |
|}
- What we both probably need is Sponenberg 2009 (he just updated it!) 2003 is in google books, but it's pre-horse genome map. What you call brown I assume is what I am calling "seal brown." (?) We DO agree on what a "normal" or "classic" or "blood bay" is. Yes. I think where you lost me was describing Agouti and "black" in the same sentence: Agouti CAN be present in a chestnut, it's just that no one cares because there's no black to suppress. Agouti and black have nothing to do with each other unless they collide in the same horse. (and hence, I wonder if anyone has studied if At produces liver chestnuts, too? Would be logical) I am now about to be really annoying and say, "but if Agouti creates bay, then, other than the recessive allele (which I call a, you call Aa, but same thing), if there's an expressed form of dominant Agouti (A) involved, they are STILL ALL BAYS (of one kind or another!) LOL! Personally, I don't really see how "wildtype" and "seal brown" are all that big of a deal. (Dun is the original "wildtype" color, after all.) They are simply interesting variants on bay. Seal brown also doesn't seem to encompass all horses identified as "dark bay" (which may include the sooty thing). My point is that even if you grant wildtype and seal brown as somewhat distinct modifiers from classic bay, my position is that none of them are any more likely to throw black than any other. Agouti always will suppress black if the dominant allele is passed on to an offspring. A side note: There IS a dun zygosity test at UC Davis now --they haven't isolated the specific locus, but they have enough nearby markers that they are selling it. Interesting. Montanabw(talk) 20:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't really see how "wildtype" and "seal brown" are all that big of a deal. (...) They are simply interesting variants on bay. Seal brown also doesn't seem to encompass all horses identified as "dark bay" (which may include the sooty thing). My point is that even if you grant wildtype and seal brown as somewhat distinct modifiers from classic bay, my position is that none of them are any more likely to throw black than any other. Agouti always will suppress black if the dominant allele is passed on to an offspring. >> Supposing the four-allele theory is true, they *are* a big deal because they would be genetically as close to each other as bay and black are. A+ and At would not just be "another" AA (or bay allele if you will). The multiple dominance thingo is kind of complicated, I know, (the table illustrates it pretty neatly and clearly IMHO), but it's crucial; (the proposed) A+ and At musn't be thought of as "just versions of AA ("the bay gene") because of their different behaviour.
- If, as the theory suggests, At exists, it's recessive for AA but dominant over Aa, and thus cannot mask AA but can mask Aa - meaning that a At phenotype horse (a seal brown horse) can be either have AtAt or AtAa in its Agouti locus, and nothing else, and thus has a theoretical 50 % chance of carrying the "unrestricted black" factor.
- AA would then be able to mask At and Aa, giving a AA phenotype horse (a bay) a theoretical 33 % chance to carry the Aa factor.
- The A+ would on the other hand dominate over all the other alleles, meaning it could mask any of the other three alleles, which would give a A+ phenotype horse (a wildtype bay) the theoretical chance of 25 % to carry the Aa factor.
- In nutshell: A+ dominant over all others → a wildtype bay can be A+A+, A+AA, A+At or A+Aa. 25 % of the cases an Aa exists.
- AA is recessive to A+ but dominates the rest → a "regular" bay can be AAAA, AAt+ or AAAa. 33 % of the cases an Aa exists.
- At is recessive to A+ and AA but dominates over Aa → a seal brown horse can be AtAt or AtAa. 50 % of the cases an Aa exists.
- Aa is recessive with all the others → a black horse can only be AaAa. 100% of the cases there is a Aa.
- Thus a seal brown horse would be, in theory, 51 % more likely to carry (and pass on) Aa than a bay horse, and 100% more likely (read: "twice as likely") than a wildtype bay horse. Pitke (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just found this: http://www.ca.uky.edu/gluck/AGTRL/Guide%20to%20Color%20Gene%20Testing.pdf and http://www.ca.uky.edu/gluck/AGTRL.asp#color Another useful source, (though some of their explanations are a little awkwardly-phrased) and UKy is another reputable University for things equine. More later. Montanabw(talk) 19:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, to answer the above, that's where we part company. Yes, a black horse has to be aa. No argument. But the rest of your math just makes no sense to me in light of random genetic selection (I'm saying that nice, I'm not trying to be mean). Aa or AA will produce bay. ALL the dominant alleles, A+, A, At are going to dominate over the recessive (a or Aa). So, given that a horse gets one allele from each parent, it's irrelevant which A (dominant) allele it is, it will always trump (a) when present. Thus if you only look at a horse that is Aa, whether that A is just plain A, A+ or At, if it is bred, there is a 50-50 chance it will pass on the dominant (A, any form) allele or the recessive (a) allele, depending on which allele landed in the egg and sperm. If the other horse was black (aa), it's a 50-50 chance of black or bay, period. Let's compare these to the most dominant gene of all, gray, which trumps everything. A homozygous gray will always throw gray. A heterozygous gray will have a 50-50 chance of throwing gray when bred to any non-gray. There's no such thing as an allele that is going to shove another allele out of the way in a sperm or egg because it's so dominant that it can bully the other alleles! Or am I missing something here?
- Next, do you have ANY proof that A+ is dominant over any other type of Bay? Absent a study, I actually beg to differ, based on observational evidence that one just doesn't see as many wild bays as classic bays (at least in Arabs, Morgans, Thoroughbreds and QH's, which are the breeds I'm most familiar with) -- also a lot of "funny" bay horses may be influenced by pangare or even possibly rabicano. As for At and A (AA) dominance, also, is there a study on this? Color wise, bays happen to be my favorites, actually, so I'm sort of into figuring this out! Montanabw(talk) 19:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's a puzzle for you, taking animals I know personally: This "blood bay" horse and this "brown" or "dark bay" horse have the same bay sire, a horse that was not dark bay or seal brown, but was a darker and richer red shade than the lighter mare, though redder than the "brown" mare. He had a grandsire about the color of my dark bay mare. The blood bay mare had a blood bay dam exactly the same color, (by a sire exactly the same color, he was by this horse.) The dark bay mare had a heterozygous gray dam, who was out of a classic blood bay mare (I remember the mare) and on her sire's side, the closest bay was this horse, also a classic bay: (click for photo). Now, I admit I have never tested the dark bay mare for seal brown, so it's also possible that she's sooty, not seal brown, but either way, she's darker than all of her ancestors for whom I have memory or color photos. (she has lighter flanks, some lighter hairs on her face. this is her and her almost-identically colored buddy Interestingly, she has 5 full brothers and sisters. Counting her, they came out 3 dark bays, one blood bay, two grays. Montanabw(talk) 19:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Soo... what's the puzzle? The dark bay/brown horse linked at the beginning looks like a sooty bay to me. After seeing a sooty bay mimicking brown this convincingly, I have recalibrated my internal "bay vs brown" scanner... Pitke (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's the problem; Sponenberg 1996 is a bit outdated, particularly since the horse genome was mapped in 2006. What I am trying to determine is what's been figured out since then. 1996 stuff is mostly theory, unless someone has mapped the gene and studied it since. I guess, at root, I question how many of these supposed coat modifiers work the way they are hypothesized: Clearly, some things have turned out to work just as proposed. But other things have not. Just as an example, UC Davis turned out to be quite a bit off about "overo," even though they still keep the incorrect info on their web site. (Sabino, Splash and Frame all different genes, and Sabino still not all figured out, only SB-1, there clearly are others) Almost everyone was wrong about there being such a thing as "lethal" homozygous Roan. "Flaxen" is another example: It seems to breed true in the Haflinger, yet, no one has really studied it: in other breeds is doesn't appear to be dominant, or even all that transmissible, two flaxen horses can produce a very ordinary chestnut. So as far as all these examples, what I wonder about is how we understand the dilution modifiers reasonably well now, but they haven't studied the "darkening" modifiers nearly enough. Another, unrelated question: What do you think of the horses here that the seller describes as "bay rabicano"? We see a lot of this light bay, silver-tail, usually no roaning stuff in certain lines. "Bay rabicano" horses more often than not have no roaning, just the silvering in the mane and tail, thus they are often quite different from chestnut rabicanos, who almost always have the distinct roaning but normal manes and just a bit of a white "skunk tail. Wonder if they are even the same thing. Thoughts?? Montanabw(talk) 20:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- So what did cause the distortion of roan inheritance? I'm dying of curiosity here! As for the "bay rabicanos", I see many have slight silvering near their groin/flank, that would be roaning there, while some seem to only have the tail ring. "Sahere" also seems to be rabicano, with some lovely "guard white" at the mane. You would wonder if the rabicano doesn't also have a range of expression (like spotting patterns do) instead of producing consistent patterns (like roan does). On other stuff, I read somewhere that sabino is more flashy on chestnuts, and more subdued on blacks... Clearly there will be enough excitement in the equine colour world for us even when we populate rocking chairs for our edit wars >w< Pitke (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- No clue about the roan thing, but here is a little of what I do know: UC Davis. Countercanter put in a bit more stuff in the Roan (horse) article. Apparently UCD had a pretty extensive study even pre-DNA test where they concluded that there had to be such things as homozygous roans and that it wasn't lethal. My guess, and it's just a guess, is that even though roan is dominant, at the same time, it's kind of a weird color that is less popular than big flashy spots or cool-looking dilutions, there just wasn't any real push to breed for it. (Scratching my head trying to think if there's a breed that is predominantly roan and cannot think of one). And yes, there is some sort of thing where sabino (and white markings in general) does seem more vivid and flashy on chestnuts...the bays seem to mostly confine themselves to high white and bald faces, the Budweiser Clydesdales thing... User:Countercanter was trying to explain to me how there is some correlation with chestnut and more white, but apparently what it is is not yet determined. I wonder if it's because chestnut is the most recessive color of them all? The one thing all this stuff seems to have in common is that these genes all seem to hang out in the general vicinity of the KIT locus. I am not clear enough on genetics to understand how all this works, but KIT has a lot to do with many of both the white patterns and roan and even some white markings that don't fall into a spotting pattern. Oh, and speaking of sabino and rabicano, if you want weird, the same dark bay mare I noted above? She's now 30 and getting VERY distinct roaning on her upper neck and forelegs. Most folks say she's just getting old and going gray, but the vet thinks she has a touch of sabino; her sire had a body spot that came and went from year to year, plus he had a huge white snip that I cannot recall if it extended onto his lower lip, but may have. You can see the roaning a little in this photo, which was taken when she was 27. It's more obvious now. Now, of further weirdness, there is ancedotal stuff that blood bays don't get this graying/roaning thing as they age, while dark bays (whatever makes them dark bays) do. What I can tell you is, having owned four bays that made it into old age, it IS true that the blood bays didn't get really any graying to speak of, while the dark bays did. Wonder what's up with that? Montanabw(talk) 17:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ardennais (horse) and Belgian (horse) are two breeds that have a lot of roans. Pitke (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Make that Ardennes (horse) (but probably wide to create redirect) US Belgians are almost all chestnuts, actually, you see some with roaning or pangare, but plain old chstnut is almost a breed trait here. The Brabant variant in Europe may not be, that I don't know, I do note commons has a lot of roan and bay Brabants... not sure the statistics on prevalence. Quarter Horses have many roans, but many more of other colors... Montanabw(talk) 18:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ardennais (horse) and Belgian (horse) are two breeds that have a lot of roans. Pitke (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- No clue about the roan thing, but here is a little of what I do know: UC Davis. Countercanter put in a bit more stuff in the Roan (horse) article. Apparently UCD had a pretty extensive study even pre-DNA test where they concluded that there had to be such things as homozygous roans and that it wasn't lethal. My guess, and it's just a guess, is that even though roan is dominant, at the same time, it's kind of a weird color that is less popular than big flashy spots or cool-looking dilutions, there just wasn't any real push to breed for it. (Scratching my head trying to think if there's a breed that is predominantly roan and cannot think of one). And yes, there is some sort of thing where sabino (and white markings in general) does seem more vivid and flashy on chestnuts...the bays seem to mostly confine themselves to high white and bald faces, the Budweiser Clydesdales thing... User:Countercanter was trying to explain to me how there is some correlation with chestnut and more white, but apparently what it is is not yet determined. I wonder if it's because chestnut is the most recessive color of them all? The one thing all this stuff seems to have in common is that these genes all seem to hang out in the general vicinity of the KIT locus. I am not clear enough on genetics to understand how all this works, but KIT has a lot to do with many of both the white patterns and roan and even some white markings that don't fall into a spotting pattern. Oh, and speaking of sabino and rabicano, if you want weird, the same dark bay mare I noted above? She's now 30 and getting VERY distinct roaning on her upper neck and forelegs. Most folks say she's just getting old and going gray, but the vet thinks she has a touch of sabino; her sire had a body spot that came and went from year to year, plus he had a huge white snip that I cannot recall if it extended onto his lower lip, but may have. You can see the roaning a little in this photo, which was taken when she was 27. It's more obvious now. Now, of further weirdness, there is ancedotal stuff that blood bays don't get this graying/roaning thing as they age, while dark bays (whatever makes them dark bays) do. What I can tell you is, having owned four bays that made it into old age, it IS true that the blood bays didn't get really any graying to speak of, while the dark bays did. Wonder what's up with that? Montanabw(talk) 17:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- If memory serves, homozygous roan was thought lethal because roan Ardenners had about 33% non-roan and 66% roan offspring. Could be explained if HZ roan was lethal (all roans would be heterozygous, and their offspring would be 25% non-roan, 50% roan, and 25% would be aborted due to lethality, leaving the foals seeing daylight 33% non-roan and 66% roan). I think UC Davis is bold to suggest that tests in one breed are enough to prove something... My money would go on multiple roan genes existing (as with sabino), and on rabicano being located in the same locus. Varnish roan is especially interesting because it 's like "old horse silvering" crossbred with greying... This is just me babbling, so don't bother smacking me with OR accusations or anything >w> Pitke (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, no one wants to donate the money to do the search for the genes that cause the "weird" colors that aren't a big deal commercially to anyone...sigh. Roan caused by different genes in different breeds certainly possible, I agree we are pretty sure that IS the case with Sabino. I will note, however, that the Quarter Horse is, at heart, kind of a mutt breed (bless them), having their stud book only since about 1945 (and still open to Thoroughbreds). They have lots of foundation stock of unknown breeding, which included a number of Mustangs, a few (known) Arabians, and lots of horses with spots, including (they hate to admit this) Appaloosas. So you probably do have a decent light horse genetic mix just within that breed alone. For all we know, there is a wee bit of draft blood in some of those "unknown" animals -- farmers used to deliberately turn draft stallions out with feral mare herds in some areas to make cheap little work horses. And then the varnish roan is actually part of the leopard complex. There's a ton of them in the Appaloosa to the point that they are not really all that desirable. Montanabw(talk) 18:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- If there's a ton of VR:ns in Appaloosas, they should totally attempt to breed it true and create a new sub-breed or something :3 I'm very fond of the pattern myself. As for Quarters, if they still take TB it means they could introduce Dominant White to their already annoyingly/enviably wide colour gene pool! owo The other option is to wait for a spontaneous mutation of course 9v9 Pitke (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I understand it, Varnish roan has nothing to do with roan and everything to do with the leopard complex, which is not entirely understood. I don't breed Appies, but my understanding is that even Appy breeders never really know what they're going to get. Sometimes they may have a delightfully spotted foal at birth that "roans out" as an adult. (At least, it's a frequent lament. That and breeding two spotted critters and getting a solid). (Full disclosure: I used to train more than my fair share of Appies, people seemed to figure if I trained Arabs I must be able to train Appies...both breeds too smart for their own good, but in different ways. Arabs just want you to love them. Conversely, if they had opposable thumbs, Appies would join Al-Qaeda! IMHO)(Dana, don't shoot me for saying that! LOL!)
Feel free to join the discussion about an alternative title at Talk:Length (horse racing). Hqb (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
RFA
Glad to know you're in support! The reason there aren't any votes yet is because it hasn't officially started yet. Once he/she (?) accepts, someone can transclude the page into the main RFA list and it will be ready for votes. Steven Walling 02:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like there was a kind-of accept on your talk page, but I guess that's not yet official. Will stay tuned. Montanabw(talk) 23:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Are Vaulters Riders
In the article on Equestrianism, you reversed my addition of "vaulters" to "riders and drivers", saying that "broadly speaking, vaulting IS a form of riding". This has actually been a source of a great deal of legal controversy (no kidding), and I think that the consensus is that vaulting is not riding.
The British Equestrian Vaulting society fought successfully on this point and Vaulting Canada fought unsuccessfully. I can't find any archived material from the BEV (I remember it from when the fight was going on), but there is stuff from VC (in a zipped file) at http://www.vaultcanada.org/downloads/More%20about%20Vaulting/helmets-all-files.zip?Cnw-Lang=English
The key point vaulters make is that the essence of riding is that the human is in control / trying to control / trying to influence the horse's movement (speed, gait, direction, etc), whereas the essence of vaulting is for the vaulter to do his / her stuff without effecting the horse (who is controlled by the lunger).
The reason it has been so controversial and ended up in courts is that in many countries, riders (especially young riders) are required to wear helmets, and vaulters generally don't want to do so. One way of avoiding the law is to argue that they are not riders.
If you have a good counter-argument, let me know. If not, I'll just restore my edit.
Equestrian1942 (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- So if the humans are in control of the horse, the humans wear helmets; but if the horse is in control of the humans, then the humans don't wear helmets??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Never let it be said that horsepeople are slaves to logic or rationality...
- Equestrian1942 (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh LOL! I never even thought of that angle! Of course, where I live, there are no mandatory helmet laws other than rules of sanctioning organizations like the USEF. (I think only New York and Florida have helmet laws). Here's the question then: is vaulting even "Equestrianism?" I mean, yes, the FEI sanctions it, but...hmmm. The philosophical implications here are mind-boggling. When is a rider not a rider? This is sort of like When is a white horse not a horse? Ultimately, I suppose it is not a moral issue. My main beef with that Equestrian article is the once people start adding things, the laundry list just keeps growing and growing. If we consider vaulting a form of equestrianism (even though the vaulter doesn't control the horse...?) then I guess I can see either way. But as long as we can limit it to just adding vaulting and keep out everyone who wants to add the sub-disciplines... also, do we even have a section in there on vaulting? (We DO have equestrian vaulting, by the way...). Hmm. Let's discuss a bit more, my head will probably wrap around the best answer soon. Montanabw(talk) 01:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see enough people here in FL without a helmet, and even my instructor is not enforcing it, so I guess it is not here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh LOL! I never even thought of that angle! Of course, where I live, there are no mandatory helmet laws other than rules of sanctioning organizations like the USEF. (I think only New York and Florida have helmet laws). Here's the question then: is vaulting even "Equestrianism?" I mean, yes, the FEI sanctions it, but...hmmm. The philosophical implications here are mind-boggling. When is a rider not a rider? This is sort of like When is a white horse not a horse? Ultimately, I suppose it is not a moral issue. My main beef with that Equestrian article is the once people start adding things, the laundry list just keeps growing and growing. If we consider vaulting a form of equestrianism (even though the vaulter doesn't control the horse...?) then I guess I can see either way. But as long as we can limit it to just adding vaulting and keep out everyone who wants to add the sub-disciplines... also, do we even have a section in there on vaulting? (We DO have equestrian vaulting, by the way...). Hmm. Let's discuss a bit more, my head will probably wrap around the best answer soon. Montanabw(talk) 01:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Here's the Florida law: [2] Looks like it's limited to when people under 16 are riding on public land, doesn't apply to private land, and also has loopholes in it big enough to drive a truck through. In the land of lawsuits, though, which is everywhere, the state of the law is that pretty much anyone who doesn't put a helmet on a kid in the US is asking for trouble, even out here in cowboy land where we "don't got none of them sissy guvmint helmet laws." (LOL) Personally, I don't teach for pay any more, but I still won't even put a kid on a horse to lead them around the yard without a helmet. Of course, this is after I was the only other person on premises and first responder at a barn where someone got dumped sans helmet, was knocked unconscious, came to with convulsions, and ultimately was helicoptered from our local hospital to a unit with better facilities. I still am not 100% on my own noggin, and am a bit willing to let adults with informed consent risk their own necks, but I am totally paranoid about kids. =:-O Montanabw(talk) 02:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, in Florida, there is always a sign that warns you and after that, you are on your own and lawsuits are practically impossible.
- Ah, yes, the south. Texas is now that way somewhat as well. Odd, in the northern plains, northern Rockies and especially the Pacific northwest, we have few or no signing requirements and a live-and-let-live attitude, but a very plaintiff-friendly environment. There's even a case out of Colorado where they ruled that a parent cannot sign away the right of a minor to sue for injuries sustained at a ski area. Kind of "it's your own fault unless it's someone else's fault." Odd juxtaposition, but then we westerners are kind of odd in general! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 02:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, in Florida, there is always a sign that warns you and after that, you are on your own and lawsuits are practically impossible.
- Here's the Florida law: [2] Looks like it's limited to when people under 16 are riding on public land, doesn't apply to private land, and also has loopholes in it big enough to drive a truck through. In the land of lawsuits, though, which is everywhere, the state of the law is that pretty much anyone who doesn't put a helmet on a kid in the US is asking for trouble, even out here in cowboy land where we "don't got none of them sissy guvmint helmet laws." (LOL) Personally, I don't teach for pay any more, but I still won't even put a kid on a horse to lead them around the yard without a helmet. Of course, this is after I was the only other person on premises and first responder at a barn where someone got dumped sans helmet, was knocked unconscious, came to with convulsions, and ultimately was helicoptered from our local hospital to a unit with better facilities. I still am not 100% on my own noggin, and am a bit willing to let adults with informed consent risk their own necks, but I am totally paranoid about kids. =:-O Montanabw(talk) 02:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your support
It has been an interesting exercise. I'm not needed or wanted, but I'll not stress over it. Cheers! Cgoodwin (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)