Talk:Thrush (horse)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Clearly this page isn't going anywhere now. The proposer makes a good argument but "equine" may not be the best disambiguator and... man, this is messy. There's no good way out. I'd sooner move this article to Thrush (disease) and redirect Thrush (horse) back to the disambiguation page, but that's not an option here. Eww. There were some decent proposals, but no good solution was found here. Red Slash 03:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

– The current title fails WP:ASTONISH and the recognizability aspect of WP:CRITERIA, since the titles implies it's about a horse named Thrush; since we have such an article, this is especially problematic. I'm open to alternative disambiguators for this page, but it ought to move one way or another. (My first thought was Thrush (infection), but that's a redirect to a human infection.) And while there's nothing exactly wrong with Thrush (racehorse), most racehorses seem to use the (horse) disambiguator, such as the other members of, and per both WP:CRITERIA and WP:D, it's best to use standard(-ish) disambiguators. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thrush (horse) → Thrush (equine)
 * Thrush (racehorse) → Thrush (horse)


 * Oppose: For now, absent a comprehensive review of horse dabs for WPEQ, we are going to just create a much bigger problem.  Not that "equine" is a bad idea (Mules can get thrush) but thrush is a VERY common infection in horses, and nearly every horse owner faces it.  The race horse is quite obscure.  Thus, WP:ASTONISH clearly mandates the infection being the most common article, and both are dabbed at Thrush.  A hatnote can clarify, and you were kind enough to add one- thank you.  Here's the situation, though:  we have literally thousands of disambiguated articles with (horse); many are named animals, mostly racehorses, but many others reference medical conditions ( Choke (horse)), equipment (bit (horse)), concepts (collection (horse)) and so on.  Sometimes we have fixed these issues without need to resort to parentheses (Horse colic, equine nutrition, Clydesdale horse, Shetland pony), but it can be a can of worms to fix with perfect consistency; "equine" will not solve all of them because some things are unique to horses.   Montanabw (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How about Thrush (horse disease)? I agree that the current title looks like the name of a particular horse. bd2412  T 22:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1st move for now once review is complete Thrush (equine) may not be as natural as horse thrush. Leave Thrush (horse) redirecting to disease. Oppose 2nd move ( race horse) that's simply making a good dab bad. Most other racehorses in the category aren't named after diseases, this one is. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in the article to suggest that the racehorse is named for the disease, as opposed to, say, the bird. bd2412  T 13:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. IF there MUST be a dab, (equine) is the simplest solution, but the next problem is that YOU (not me) get to disambiguate all the horse articles that link to the disease article.  This is a shitload of work you are making where there are only one or two articles with this problem.  Unless you want to look for ALL the articles with this problem (there are probably 4 or 5, just guessing) We also need to ping WP Horse racing on this.   Montanabw (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:BD2412, I was being tongue in cheek, obviously the racehorse is named after the bird not the disease, but the unfortunate coincidence means it is an outlier, BDD, and category comparisons are not appropriate. I fully agree with User:Montanabw and should have given that as another reason for opposing the 2nd move. It's always bad news to do a sudden 180 switch between articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * At least we're trying to keep our sense of humor.  Montanabw (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, I think that Thrush (horse) is an odd title for a disease. On closer inspection, most ambiguously named diseases use "(disease)" as their disambiguator. See, e.g., Blackleg (disease) (a livestock disease), Hoose (disease) (a disease of sheep, cattle, and swine), Ringtail (disease) (in rodents), Red Thread (disease) (a grass disease), White Rust (disease) (a plant disease), as well as numerous human diseases (Noma (disease), Pinta (disease), Orf (disease), Kuru (disease), Athelia (disease), Roman Fever (disease)). bd2412  T 03:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You kind of have a point there, (not that I agree with the move request, but) presuming you mean "disease article" - except that disambiguation is kind of an in-wiki phenomenon anyway, so article names are all over the place. Though we have horse colic, we also use the scientific name for many conditions.  However, "thrush" in horses is used not only for a specific bacterial condition, but also as a catchall term for "stinky hooves due to wet, dirty conditions." (when you stand in manure, all sorts of bad mojo grows).  But in either case, I think we need to keep the (racehorse) disambiguator in this case due to the WP:PRIMARY situation involved.    Montanabw (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose the racehorse should not be moved, it is insufficiently disambiguous at the suggested name. The disease should be moved to Thrush (horse disease), as there's more than one Thrush (disease) (which should redirect to Thrush) After moving the disease, then "Thrush (horse)" should also point to the disambiguation page. -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing that up. I would suggest that any human disease would be primary over any non-human disease, which would result in Thrush (disease) being redirected to Candidiasis, with a hatnote pointing to the horse disease. Obviously it has not been an issue up to now. bd2412  T 23:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that (disease) would have to go to the human version. But Thrush (horse) has been stable (pun intended) and there is no real reason to change it, and even if you did, (hoof infection) would be far more accurate than (horse disease) because it is sort of a toenail rot at most (though not the same bacteria). You guys are really creating a problem where none exists.  Can we just drop it and let it go?  Montanabw (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The condition in horses is called "necrotizing pododermatitis" but everyone refers to it as "thrush", which is really a misnomer as the disease is caused by the bacterium Fusobacterium necrophorum and has nothing to do with Candidiasis as is seen in the human thrush. I agree with Montana that the articles are stable and this really isn't an issue for readers finding the appropriate pages. If it came to a move I would probably choose Horse thrush for the disease and Thrush (horse) for the racehorse. Or, less ideally, since horse "thrush" is basically the foot rot seen in cattle or sheep, maybe a merger and cleanup of Foot rot. Froggerlaura  ribbit 05:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Thrush_(horse)  Montanabw (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose: In the majority of case "x (horse)" refers to a horse named x so the change would make things more consistent. From the point of view of a user (rather than an editor) however, the current titles make more sense: more people are going to be looking for the disease.  Tigerboy1966  06:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.