Talk:Rump (animal)

Move and rename?
I propose moving and renaming this to Croup (rump) or Croup (horse), to be more consistent with equine anatomy and all the other horse articles. "Croup" is the proper, formal term, "rump" is more informal. At least if we are talking horses. Please comment. If no comments in 48 hours, I'll assume it's OK to move it. Montanabw (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is not strictly about horses. --Una Smith (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your new additions make that clearer. The sections on each animal are quite helpful.  Good expansion.  Montanabw (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject
This article is more relevant to WikiProject Mammals; I have changed the project tag and assessment. --Una Smith (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Needs more photos of haunchal meat
I am very disappointed in the variety of photos in this article. Are horses the only animals with haunches? This article makes it seem this way. It shouldn't be hard to find more photos since so so many animals have haunches. 209.152.69.110 (talk), Haunch lover for life —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC).


 * Long story. Feel free to add to the article if you want to, but it is about living non-human animals, not humans or meat cuts.   Montanabw (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Croup?
Why in the world is there a statement about the croup in an article about the rump? For heaven's sake, they're at opposite ends of the animal and have no relationship to each other.Caeruleancentaur (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The croup of a horse IS the rump. There was a big, long, stupid edit war over this and the article titling a few years back.  The croup of a bird or something is a wholly different thing, of course.  I suppose a clarification statement in this article would be helpful.   Montanabw (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

incomplete or mispunctuated?

 * The rump or croup, in the external morphology of an animal, is the portion of the posterior dorsum – that is, posterior to the loins and anterior to the tail.

If the part after the dash is a mere clarification, then the first part of the sentence is missing something: one would not normally write "is the portion of X" without specifying which portion of X. The sentence makes more sense if the dash and the subsequent comma are omitted: "is the portion that is posterior". (In that case I'd omit the first "posterior".) —Tamfang (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)