Talk:Impulsion

Move?
Requested move/dated|Impulsion Impulsion (horse) → Impulsion –
 * Support as nominator. Page disambiguated without need, a hatnote can direct people to the Impulse page.  Montanabw (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)  Montanabw (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Impulsion" has other meanings: see impulsion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per AnthonyAppleyard. Other meanings of "Impulsion" is covered in several articles at the impulse dab page. And horsepower doesn't show up in the dictionary FreeDictMerriam-Webster, nor does it dominate the results of Google (if it were the primary topic, most results would be about horse-based implusion) Though I do agree that the current article title is awkward and should be rethought. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean "horsepower," it is a technical term with far more nuance than that; hence the article; it's a concept that is complicated and goes beyond a mere definition. However, if this request to move fails, "Impulsion (horse)" is consistent with other wikipedia articles, awkward as it is. I will also note that the dab page is for "impulse" not "impulsion." Impulsion in a horse is most distinctly not an "impulse".  Also when I type "impulsion" into Google, it suggests "impulsion for eventers" "impulsion dressage" and "impulsion Aqha" -- all equestrian modifiers.   Montanabw (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. There is no other article titled "impulsion." This is disambiguation without a point. I expected the article to be about a racehorse named "Impulsion." Kauffner (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Anthony Appleyard and the anon do have a good point, however this particular word is rarely used outside the equestrian world. A quick google search brings up mainly horse related things together with a few non notable things like a dc motor and a trademarked golf club, so it clear this is the most common usage of the word. --Salix (talk): 07:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose . Impulse is a moderately common word, taught in high school science.  Impulsion is an unfamiar word, but looks like it should mean the broader effects of an impulse, which seems consistent with the usage in the article, except that it is particular to the horse.  I see this as needing more precision than simply "impulsion", thinking that the unfamiliar will be overly astonished to arrive on following the link to find a tightly focused equestian article.  I think "Impulsion (horse)" is OK, but "Equestrion impulsion" might be better.  This article is not really about the mechanics of impulsion, it is primarily an equestrian article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Though I prefer the title "impulsion," the second choice is "impulsion (horse)" per both MOS for dabs and the naming conventions we are using at WikiProject Equine.  It is the horse which possesses impulsion, not the person riding it, and though produced by proper equestrianism, it is also routinely seen in horses at liberty (out in the pasture on any cold, windy day, in fact!).   Montanabw (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have written "Equine impulsion". If the "horse" disambiguation is removed, I would expect to find a broader treatment included.  Does tis apply to all long legged, four-legged animals?  Does a giraffe have an even more pronounce impulsion?  When a dog or a big cat leaps into a sprint, does the action begin with impulsion?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never even heard the term used for donkeys (Mules, in theory could do dressage, I suppose, but they are half horse). If someone wants to provide evidence, it should be considered, but for now, I'd say it's OR.  "Thrust" is probably the more common word for a quickly accelarating animal, and in horse land "impulsion" can actually occur at any speed, it's a state of being, closely linked to Collection (horse) (note we did need the disambiguator there) and thus not limited to the leaping gaits.   Montanabw (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Impulsion can be seen in the paddock, or is it restrcited to dressage? The article says it is important in all equestrian disciplines and is particularly important in dressage.  Is it restricted to equestrian discipline or not?  The lede contains a confused introduction (eg. power is not thrust, "speed does not create impulsion"?  Since when might speed create either power or thrust?).  The definitions are then tightly equestrian-centred.  This creates the impression that "impulsion" is a generic subject, but everything to be covered here is limited to equestian matters.  Is this true?  It calls for research, without any call for "original".  I just attempted some.  It became plainly obvious that this article does not describe the common meaning for "impulsion".  While Impulsion, in its generic sense (eg impulsion), may not warrant a stand alone article, it belongs at least as a redirect, this article should remain disambiguated.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. the article needs work, not enough horses to pull the wagon to get to it any time soon. But to explain, dressage is "classical horsemanship" so the field defines the core concepts of horsemanship akin to what classical music is to music generally, or perhaps as classical ballet is to dancing. Yet, dressage ALSO seeks to have the horse appear to be acting "naturally" -- i.e. as if it were performing of its own free will, the training being to create very light and minimal cues.  So, you can, rarely, see a spirited horse moving with impulsion completely on their own (stallions who see a mare, notably), but the movement itself is only consistently produced with a rider. this horse exhibits veryh good impulsion at all speeds throughout the whole video, this horse does not! (except maybe for a couple seconds when he slows to a trot by the trailer in the first bit)  Montanabw (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So, the lede is agreed to be poor. This site is directly and forcefully critical of it.  I have made a fresh attempt.  If the lede clearly and unambiguously makes it clear that this is a specific subject to do with horses, and the hat note is present, then the rename might look more acceptable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, Joe, did you read the rest of that page? Horsemanpro is a WP:FRINGE source. While he criticizes wiki, he has a lot of other rants, such as saying "And so, what do the women (suffering from intellectual inferiority complex) do if they cannot do the same things as men? They change things, rename things or change the meaning of words to their liking, which can be seen clearly now in the dressage world of horses, or better said in the world of horses, as women like these literally took over, and the only men remaining are those that exploit this situation and the silly women in the process."  Let's just allow this disambig discussion to play out and then, if you want to review the "official" mainstream sources like the USEF, USDF and FEI, editing the article from those highly reliable sources, then I'm all for it.   Montanabw (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I object in particular to the previous lede existing under the proposed new title. It is logical nonsense, clearly misusing otherwise well-defined words like thrust and power. I sort of get what is meant, but it is written horribly. The most important point is that what the term applies to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I really have other fish to fry right now than to fix this particular article, (it's obscure, it's technical and of interest primarily to aficionadois) but if it means so much to you, I'll redo the lead (I don't know who originally wrote it or when), as you still don't quite understand the concept (this said with a smile), so let someone who understands the field do this much. You are free to criticize my edit if it is still incomprehensible; I'll at least have it technically correct.   Montanabw (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's beautiful. I understand it, but writing it was well beyond me.  Thank you.  The lede "Impulsion refers to the movement of a horse" now reads clearly as a technical term for the horse, and does not read as an uneducated misuse of physics.  Somebody looking for Impulse (physics) will no longer remotely be the least confused.  I have no objection to the move.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd normally oppose removing a disambiguator on the grounds of this being the only use, but in this case (like Kauffner) I assumed from the title that this was about a horse of that name. Is this the only notable application of the word? Or is there any material for a more general article on Impulsion? Perhaps (as hsa been suggested) we just need a better disambiguator. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, please, please don't raise the "different disambiguator" issue, unless you want to go change hundreds of other articles, sometimes illogically... Montanabw (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No one has yet provided a different example for the "-sion" use, and to dab to "impulse" from this article makes no sense in horse land, as "impulse" in horses means something entirely different from impulsion (an "impulse" of a horse usually describes behavior: "his "impulse" was to buck off his rider and go eat grass"). The dab  "(horse)" is used by wikiproject equine in two ways:  to distinguish individual horse articles where a dab is needed (Skowronek (horse)) AND for some terms that need dabs, such as bit (horse).  (although there is some inconsistency, as in horse blanket).  We have zillions of both, so if we must keep the dab (which I oppose), let's keep this dab as (horse) to be consistent with other articles.  If someone wants (horse) to only apply to named horse "biographies) and not horse topic articles, that's a totally different discussion for the WPEQ talk page and not this article.   Montanabw (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The use of the word "impulsion" to describe anything other than the movement of a horse is rare enough that the horse meaning is, at least, the primary topic for the term. bd2412  T 04:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment . I'm sensing an impulsion to oppose this suggestion. I'm also a human being. (Honestly.) Perhaps "Impulsion" should point to something like Motivation? 213.246.91.158 (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC) ...I was thinking of "compulsion". Apologies. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, but it's neither.  Montanabw (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like consensus is to move it to Impulsion, I'll take care of that if there's no further objections. Dreadstar  ☥   21:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Moved
I've moved the article to Impulsion per the above archived discussion. Dreadstar ☥   04:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and thank you also for fixing the dabs.  Montanabw (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Quote modification
A while ago, I made an edit to this article to shorten a quote. The original text stated:
 * "The USEF states, 'Impulsion is the term used to describe the transmission of an eager and energetic, yet controlled propulsive energy generated from the hindquarters into the athletic movement of the horse.'"
 * I altered it to read

My intention was to remove the phrase "term used to describe" which seems like unnecessary fluff. User:Montanabw has opposed this edit on the grounds that this phrase may be an important part of the quote. I can't think of a situation where "term used to describe" in a definition wouldn't be fluff. I also feel like my alteration made the sentence flow better. What do others think? — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "The USEF states that impulsion is 'the transmission of an eager and energetic, yet controlled propulsive energy generated from the hindquarters into the athletic movement of the horse.'"


 * Well, if anyone out there cares, please note that the USEF doesn't say "impulsion IS" they say "impulsion is the term", so changing a direct quote is what is involved here. I don't know if they consider that difference to be significant or if they simply are not the perfect genius expert grammarian that Aeusoes1 is and just added "fluff." But I think it matters that we are using a direct quotation and there really isn't an argument to potentially change the meaning.  See WP:SYNTH.  And FWIW, I consider overuse of the word "that" to also be poor grammar that interrupts flow.   Montanabw (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Does my change introduce such an overuse of that? — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 21:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a style question and your use is poor style. It's not a sin against humanity, just one of those minor things "that" are nice to avoid. But frankly, let's just let this sit for a bit and see if anyone else cares.  I have other fish to fry.  Montanabw (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)