Talk:Anglo-Norman horse

[Untitled]
Hey CC, when you create a new article, either give me a heads up or "trot" over to WP:EQ to add the templates so it gets added to the list. Almost all the breed articles are classed "low" other than the big major ones, like TBs. Thanks. (Good start, by the way, note I mangled very little)  Montanabw (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and also add article to list of horse breeds, plus put "Category:Horse breeds" in the article and add the Equidae template. See my additions here.   Montanabw (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

One more thing
Just wondering, for the purpose of putting this article in the right spot in the list of horse breeds. Are there any Anglo-Normans alive today, or is it an extinct breed like the Neapolitan horse, now subsumed into other breeds? Montanabw (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Some sources
The 1900 "Le cheval Anglo-Normand" by Gallier. Please note that this text describes the horses bred for different roles that were relevant for the time: the Remount, the Army horse, the Artillery horse, Carrossiers, etc. If I understand correctly, these types of horses were not necessarily individual breeding aims, but purposes for which horses bred in the region might be put to depending on their qualities. That is not to say, either, that people did not preconceive the type of horse they were looking for out of a breeding. And these different types are all Anglo-Norman horses. http://books.google.com/books?id=6NTbAAAAMAAJ&ots=78xCQ6yJ3H&dq=%22Le%20cheval%20Anglo-Normand%22%20Gallier&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false

Countercanter (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Translation
Ok, introduction is too short but I've not seen problems about translation from fr version. Good job =) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, I need to expand the lead and do a bit of cleanup. Just wanted to make sure my translation was solid. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Prep FAC
Per GA discussion, here's what I think I'd like to see tweaked before I support an FAC.
 * 1) Any remaining hidden text issues in the article not otherwise listed below
 * 2) History section needs to be as chronologically organized as possible, particularly the third paragraph of History section which still reads as somewhat choppy and disorganized, jumping around between the types. I'd maybe give this article a rest of a week and then see it with fresh eyes.
 * 3) Maybe put this up for peer review or ask respected editors to peek at it, I'm kind of bleary-eyed about it myself, now!  Montanabw (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks. Yup, I'm also going to ask one of the other bio editors to take a look, but need to get through Pryor Mountain Mustang first...keep forgetting to pop over there and take a fresh look. I'll try to get to that tonight, and to this later this week. Dana boomer (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought that was already GA, are you thinking FAC?  Montanabw (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, thinking FAC for both of them (this and PMM) in the next couple of months. Dana boomer (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Stud-book open again
Hello. The Anglo-norman studbook is open again since 2015. I've added the sources in fr-article. I can try to do the same here. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Go ahead! I'll refine your English if needed!   Montanabw (talk)  02:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Era.
You wrote, "WikiProject Equine doesn't really care, so let's use the modern format." That is not a sufficient reason for changing the era style of the article. Please read WP:ERA carefully, especially where it says "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change." tahc chat 20:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * (Moved from my talk page). This is not an issue worth edit-warring over, but I must note that WP:ERA also states, "Either convention may be appropriate."  There was no objection from the people who have actually worked on this article to the editor, Ldvhl, changing the one instance of this use from BC to BCE.  You have never edited this article, as far as I can tell.  Thus, you were the one changing the article back even though no one who actually edited the article cared. I also see from your contribs that you are at ANI over this very issue, along with, thus my view is that the two of you cancel each other out and probably will never agree anyway.  Frankly, the editors at WPEQ have seen these BC/BCE battles come and go across the articles in our project's scope and we haven't established any general consensus on the question; we've tended to avoid it.  I don't know if  cares, Dana boomer is no longer editing, and the only other editor who has worked on this article to any significant extent who might have a view here is , so I shall ping them.  I don't have particularly strong feelings on this question, other than that I don't want to see edit-warring over this perpetual issue happening here.  There aren't many horse breed articles where this even occurs, and the style is a mixed bag (including inconsistency within articles). I slightly favor the BCE/CE format in a science-based topic article, but it's not a huge deal to me either way, so if other editors who work on horse topics or this article have a strong view in the other direction, I shall abide by an actual consensus.   Montanabw (talk)  23:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)