Talk:Breeching (tack)

Lead image
I swapped back to the lead image the closeup of breeching without extraneous details (such as the vehicle). The image with the vehicle I kept, to show the breeching in context. I try to follow this practice: first show the reader exactly and only what the article talks about, without extraneous details and even if the absence of context makes it a little hard to grasp, then show the topic in context. --Una Smith (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed it because the other pic doesn't clearly show the breeching attached to the shafts. However, I think your logic is good here, and so I agree with the arrangement you've done (even if it does put my lovely cob lower down...).  Richard New Forest (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion in edit summaries
In this edit] Richard New Forest wrote this edit summary: ''Minor clarifications. MOS:BOLD: bold not to be used for emphasis, except for headword in lead para. Unlink wheeler, as there is no relevant article -- therefore replace explanation.''

Hi Richard. I know some other editors put comments like this in their edit summaries but that tends to impede discussion. Okay, onto the discussion. --Una Smith (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The edit summary is for explanation of the edit, and can be expanded upon in discussion. I don't really think it impedes discussion – it acts as a starting point for it, and also I find it helps prevent knee-jerk reverts.  Richard New Forest (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I prefer to stick to a summary of the edits, and add "see talk" if explanation is necessary. Discussions carried out in edit summaries are very hard to follow and are concealed from many editors who might otherwise read them and be able to contribute.  Habitual knee jerk reverts are a form of disruptive editing.  If explanations are so often necessary to avoid such reverts, the reverting editor should be dealt with directly, rather than contained via defensive edit summaries. --Una Smith (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I hadn't quite appreciated your point... I agree that talk-page discussion is better than doing it by a series of summaries – I thought you were saying that summaries should not explain the edit.  What I meant by avoiding knee-jerk reverts is that a clear explanation makes it clear that an edit is done for a reason, and is not vandalism or petty interference.  Richard New Forest (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am saying edit summaries should not explain the edit. I make an exception when both the edit and the explanation are likely to be satisfactory to everyone.  Eg, make redirect after merge is both a summary of the edit and an explanation.  A neutral explanation.  However, I think defensive explanations more properly belong on the talk page, where they can be examined by everyone who has an interest.  Adding "see talk" to the summary is a neutral flag that an explanation, maybe a defensive one, can be found elsewhere. --Una Smith (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Per wikipedia guidelines, an edit summary DOES explain the edit, controversial or not. In many cases, edit summaries can avoid endless discussion on the talk page.   As stated in Help:Edit summary:  "the summary field may also contain an explanation of the change;... To give a longer explanation, use the Talk page and put in the edit summary "see Talk"."  ALSO, "Proper use of edit summaries is critical to resolving content disputes. Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial. If the edit involves reverting previous changes, it should be marked as a revert ("rv") in the edit summary."  (I added the boldface)  HOWEVER, "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! Instead, place such comments, if required, on the talk page. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself."  So I hope this explains use of edit summaries.  They have the advantage of being a permanent record of the history of a page and why certain changes have been made.  As such, we all have individual discretion as to how much we want to say, of course.   Montanabw (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Bold
Terms within the body of an article are bold not for emphasis but to to indicate to the reader that this article is where the term is defined. Ie, they are headwords, albeit not in the lead. Hence the bold I applied to "false breeching" etc. Some readers coming to the article will be following links to false breeching and making the term bold helps them find it amid all the other text. --Una Smith (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. MOS:BOLD is quite clear – bold is to be used for first occurrence of headword in lead para, and in certain very limited other situations, but not for headwords elsewhere, nor for these "sub-headwords".  This is pretty well established practice, and any discussion should really be at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting). Italics are often used instead in this situation.  Richard New Forest (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm. Bold headwords in the body of the article are pretty well established practice in WikiProject Medicine articles.  I may pursue this.  --Una Smith (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wheeler, leader, etc.
Re wheeler, I moved the definition elsewhere, to a more appropriate article, but I forgot to return and fix the link. Sorry! For sure, Wikipedia needs an article that explains wheelers and leaders, and any related concepts. There are parenthetical tangents about these on several other pages, including Combined driving and possibly Mushing. I propose to consolidate those tangents under Driving_(horse). --Una Smith (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea – but the other article does need to be linked correctly here, and also from Wheeler (disambiguation). With a proper link I agree that the explanation is not needed here.  Richard New Forest (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, and I see you are busy expanding Driving_(horse), so meanwhile I will leave this article alone. --Una Smith (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Harness and false breeching
Both harness and false breeching are used in the presence of long rigid traces (? shafts) on either side of the animal. I want to expand the article to include this, but lack necessary content to link to. Namely, some draft animals work without rigid traces; also, Trace (tack) (an itty bitty stub) mentions only straps etc., nothing rigid. Its focus is on pulling a load forward, no mention of resisting the forward movement of the load. Horse harness mentions traces and, separately, shafts. --Una Smith (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Una – Harness is used whenever pulling, so both wheelers and leaders have it; it pulls forward on flexible traces (chains or straps) which hitch onto the vehicle. Breeching or false breeching is used only when slowing, so only wheelers have it.  Breeching pulls back on a pair of shafts either side of a single animal, or on a pole between two animals.  False breeching can only be used between shafts (but is unusual nowadays and ordinary breeching is normally used instead).  With a dragged load there are no wheelers, so no shafts or pole either.


 * The shafts or pole are part of the vehicle, not part of the harness, which is why I'd not included them much in the article myself. However, your confusion shows that it's not clear, so I agree, some more explanation needs to go in.  It's one of those things which are completely obvious if you've ever seen them close-to, but mysterious if not.


 * There is one situation where shafts do pull as well as push: in cart harness, used in a farm cart or wagon with shafts, where the trace chains hook onto loops in the middle of the shafts. In other harness (including other carts) the traces hook in one way or another onto the body of the vehicle.    Richard New Forest (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I have worked it out.  --Una Smith (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I don't think I was confused; I lacked vocabulary.  --Una Smith (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, major progress on harness breeching. I searched Commons for false breeching, also for animals hitched behind the load, without success. I did not check corresponding articles on other Wikipedia. Richard, do you have any photos? Also, the article is getting to the point of needing a history section and some references. --Una Smith (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have any photos of false breeching, but if I can't find any I may make some and put it on the cart for the purpose (carts often have the loops for it, though they are rarely used). We could really do with a good diagram of harness, but I can't find any old enough to use.  Richard New Forest (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One way to make a diagram is to take a decent photo from commons that is allowed to be altered, and just add the labels over it, making a diagram in that fashion. It's what was done for some of the saddle articles.  Ideally it is done in photoshop, but if you have just a word processor, you can make a basic diagram and save it as a jpg or png, and if someone else has better software, they can tweak it further.   Montanabw (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I have a decent photo of breast harness I could use, and I can take one of full collar van harness.  I haven't one of cart harness, but there'll be one in commons I'm sure.  Richard New Forest (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * JPEG and PNG are pixel graphic formats. For a diagram, a vector graphic gives far better results.  SVG is the preferred format on Commons.  Also, regardless of pixel or vector, to support using the same diagram across wikipedia it helps to label the graphic with call out letters or numbers.  Ie, use no text in the diagram.  The diagram gets a caption or is used in an infobox with the appropriate term for each label, in the local language.  File:Eye_in_cross-section.svg is an example.  Commons has some info about making diagrams.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair points, but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. People can do a basic diagram, and those who have both the software and the time can make a diagram even better if they wish.  But a good diagram on English wiki should not be avoided just because the person with the expertise to make it doesn't have the software to make vectored images (i.e. Photoshop).   Montanabw (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion in edit summaries
Two long comments in recent edit summaries are copied here, with my replies.


 * Bitting rigs do not have harness breeching, they are used to train riding horses. This is confusion with certain training gadjets that have rear straps for wholly different purposes


 * According to several full text books on Google Books that match the search terms breeching and bitting rig, a bitting rig can and sometimes does (or did) have breeching. --Una Smith (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the works cited there, from my read, explain that then as now, a horse was first introduced to a bitting rig, then once accustomed to it, the horse was introduced to a harness with breeching, though perhaps without traces. Looks like some of the books only on harness training may have pretty much included all elements.  Would need proper sourcing.  Here's the Problem:  A true bitting rig uses a crupper to stabilize the surcingle and keep the thing from sliding forward.  What DOES exist today are some gadgets that add straps around the hindquarters, called "breeching" but due to appearance only, not use -- they attach to the horse's MOUTH!  =:-O   Obviously, horses don't pull carts with their mouths!   For that reason, I think that whatever else happens here, we much be extremely careful not to confuse these odd, artificial training devices with harness breeching or with the commonly understood bitting rig.  This is an example of "breeching" on a sort-of bitting rig (this thing is called the "Pessoa Lungeing System", marketed as a "training aid," not as a "bitting rig"  For what that's worth...).  As you see, the strap around the hindquarters goes to the mouth.  In no sense is this true harness breeching, nor should it be confused as such.


 * all vehicles have either shafts or a pole; breeching is not attached to girth, though may run through it as in mediaeval harness pic


 * Dog sleds are animal-drawn "vehicles" that have neither shafts nor pole, and they can move forward from inertia at times when not being pulled. The driver brakes the sled.  I would agree that breeching usually is not attached to the girth:  usually there is a collar.  But, when there is no collar, breeching may be attached to the girth / pad / whatever.  Again, see Google Books. --Una Smith (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Old books are proof that certain arrangements at least used to be routine. Even if such arrangements no longer exist (a state that generally is not verifiable), they are relevant to this article: as history. Both comments above are in the class "I never heard of it, so it must not be true"; in such cases I recommend simply using a fact tag. bold, revert, discuss is good, but bold, discuss is better. --Una Smith (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd not thought of a dog sled as being a vehicle (anyway, isn't it covered by "dragged loads"...?). Anyway, in context, I think the statement is true: we are talking of "proper" vehicles pulled by larger draught animals, and I can't think of any arrangements for those which don't use either shafts or a pole.  The wording as it was suggested that there was some class of "proper" vehicles which don't have them, and isn't that more confusing than leaving out dog sleds?


 * Proper footnotes in proper context solve many a discussion. It is the responsibility of the person attempting to add information to provide verification if challenged.  Personally, I am no dog sledding expert, just an occasional spectator, but we have a lot of sled dog racing up here and I have to say I have never seen breeching on a sled dog.  Brakes are on the sled.  That's a new one and probably OR, IMHO, but I'll let the rest of you sort that out.   Montanabw (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And if anyone cares, it looks like harness with breeching is used on dogs pulling CARTS, see here and here, but, as I suspected, not sleds, see here.  Montanabw (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not yet convinced by the girth thing. What is the girth then attached to?  Why not attach the breeching directly to that? (Can you give a link to the particular Google book you mean?)  Richard New Forest (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)