Template talk:Horse breeds of France

Names
Commentary: These names need to be in English per WP:USEENGLISH   Montanabw (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, in fact, sometimes we translate the name, and sometimes not, see : fr:Catégorie:Race chevaline originaire des États-Unis. Our books use the name "Rocky Mountain Horse", not "cheval des montagnes rocheuses", "Missouri Fox Trotter" not "Trotteur renard du Missouri", "Carolina Marsh Tacky" not "marcheur de la Caroline", etc... but we never use the word "horse" in a french article. For exemple, Mustang (horse) is translated with mustang (cheval), and Choctaw (horse) with Choctaw (cheval). The Auvergne horse is also called juste "Auvergne" in fr. There's also breeds who don't still exist at this time, like the Navarrin horse. I think you can translate Cheval Navarrin => Navarrin horse. Oh, another little problem : Cheval Barraquand and Cheval du Vercors are the same breed, and "Corlais" is the Corlay horse, now extinct. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the word "horse" need to be displayed on all these in the template? I mean, we know they are horses, or breeds of horse, right? - because that's what the header says. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:PRIMARY, we only add "horse" (pr "pony") if it is needed for disambiguation, unless it is part of the official name (like American Quarter Horse), without which the breed name would be meaningless (an "American Quarter" is something else entirely!). For all the breeds named after nations or regions (Clydesdale, Belgian, etc.) the nation or region is clearly primary, so we just add "horse" and don't fight about it.  Montanabw (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Discusison of red links and such
Starting discussion of whether to keep all the red links in this template per WP:BRD. My take is that some of these redlinks have already "gone blue" by the creation of articles and thus do no harm, particularly as there is an active effort to bring over the best of the fr.wikipedia articles on these breeds. Note: fr.wiki version. Montanabw (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I saw the edits and the ping. I think there's every likelihood that those redlinks will become articles and turn blue, and see no reason not to keep them. They have the advantage of showing which breeds do not yet have an article here. There's discussion of redlinks in a similar template here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:REDNOT (Red links generally are not included in [...] navigational boxes)and WP:EXISTING (editors are encouraged to write the article first) regarding red links in navboxes. Also, articles should not be linked to more than once in a navbox. There were also some WP:BIDIRECTIONAL issues. This needs to be tidied up.  I'd also like to point out WP:NAVBOX (4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template), which is also not complied with.  I think the problem here is that the navbox is trying to emulate an article.  Maybe an article "List of horse breeds of France" should be created, where the redlinks and redirects are permitted, then the navbox can do its job properly and solves everyone's problems.  Does that work for you guys?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I've seen you've created List of French horse breeds, so I assume we can revert this template to my version now? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No. There is an ongoing discussion here, with a 2-1 consensus in favor of keeping them.  Lists are also equally susceptible to REDNOT complaints; consensus at many list articles is to dump redlinks even faster than here.  It is much more difficult to go add new links as articles are created than to pre-seed the links to make them go blue once an article is up.  This is, in my view, a WP:DONOTDEMOLISH situation.  However, as there is a consolidated discussion of all your changes elsewhere, I shall go there as well.   Montanabw (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * this discussion appears to be going on in more than one place. I, personally, think that the place for the redlinks is in List of French horse breeds, not here. Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We have a consolidated discussion elsewhere, I agree. I mentioned my view that lists are no better a place for redlinks than navboxes, and NOTRED has a clear exception for articles likely to be created.  All of which I mention and discuss at the consolidated discussion.   Montanabw (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not for naboxes it doesn't - that's about general text. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just had a look at the French version! If you're basing your navboxes on that eyesore, no wonder we have a problem!!!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The opinions of both sides have some value. Red links should stay, as an invitation to create that article. But non-relevant text should be removed or minimized. The crosses have no value, the explanation about what is considered a French breed also has no value but an alternative name can be useful. Keep a template as light as possible. The Banner talk 10:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All the redlinks? per WP:NOTRED: Red links generally are not included [...] in navigational boxes, [...] since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles.  This isn't worthy of the exception given at the guideline regarding complete sets, as it is not a finite set, and we do not know whether the redlinks are likely to be created into articles, or if they are even notable.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redlinks can actually be helpful. There were about 100 of them on Bach cantatas not long ago, which ensured the articles would be created with the correct titles. - I looked at the French version and like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redlinks are helpful at articles, per your example List of Bach cantatas or per this navbox List of French horse breeds, but in navboxes, where the sole purpose is to direct readers between existing articles, they are nothing but clutter; they detract from the function of the navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your opinion. For about three years, the red links in the template (present on all cantatas) told me and everybody interested how many cantatas there are and which (were then) still without an article, without the extra click to the list article. It was tremendously helpful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not my opinion, per the guideline. If it's conversion of redlinks you want, do it from the article, not the navbox.  This isn't what they are for.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I hate to be picky, but what you said, "Redlinks are helpful at articles", is your opinion, mine is that redlinks are helpful in a navbox, and I am happy that whoever created the example above ignored the guideline or used the common sense that is mentioned on top of the MoS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, redlinks are not helpful in navboxes, because they don't help navigation. The hint is in the name.  If common sense was followed, then these navboxes would be left to do their job properly, which is that of a navigation aid.  Otherwise they wouldn't be called a "navbox" but a "redlink repository".  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I say a last time that they helped me tremendously, that is not opinion but fact. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And how did they help you navigate Gerda? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not even the guideline states that red links are not allowed as it speak about "generally". The common use is different from your opinion. The Banner talk 11:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it mentions "generally", and then goes on to give the exception as a finite series. This is not a finite series.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

See also 's comment here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, we also have WP:IAR for those cases that existing rules are harmful for Wikipedia. The Banner talk 12:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not an WP:IAR issue though - it's "harmful" to include the redlinks, as they hinder the navbox from doing their job - to provide simple navigation - their function is not to be a repository for articles that may or may not need creating. The additional redlinks get in the way of efficient navigation.  As a navbox is solely to provide navigation, we have to ask ourselves how navigation is aided by including the redlinks. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Invoking IAR is appropriate in exactly one case, which is where the Obviously Right Thing is being blocked by some dullard continually quoting policy shortcuts like they're gospel. Where someone has made a reasoned point, invoking IAR is a good indicator that the invoker has run out of arguments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chris, that does indeed seem to be a perfect description of the present situation; mindless application of "rules" that in fact are not rules at all, but guidelines, is unlikely to be helpful to the project. However, my own intention is not to ignore rules, but to try to reach consensus. May I suggest that (a) someone change the title of this section to "Discussion ..." rather than "Discusison ..."; and (b) that the discussion be kept in one place, for which I suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that is saying that that is exactly what I wasn't doing, and that I had stated my case, but the rest of you are on a WP:IDHT route.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, "I know you are but what am I" is not typically an indicator that someone is really engaging with the opposite side of a debate. But yeah, little point in having this discussion in two places. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I can't see a compelling reason to ignore WP:NOTRED in this case. Red links in navboxes get in the way of navigation, and I think that we should prioritise our readers' experience over convenience for editors who might click the links wanting to start an article. There is an easy solution to this problem if anyone is feeling particularly productive, though - you can just go and create all of the articles. Any takers? :) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ask Dr. Blofeld. After I wrote one Bach cantata a week, he did the last 30 or so in a day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The red links are all mirrored at the list article anyway, so anyone could use that to create the articles.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Redlinks aside, I'm not sure of the purpose of the unlinked text that keeps getting added back in - how does this aid navigation? Cluttering up a navbox is not helpful.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely support Montana bw on this. I think it's about time Rob you gave this REDNOT thing a rest. Red links might not be aesthetically pleasing but they're the key to building a better encyclopedia. If an editor is actively working on a topic they should be permitted to introduce as many links as they desire.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * the key here is the definition of "actively working", I have seen first-hand where this means the editor won't start on it until the navbox is nominated for deletion. the main list article is enough for anyone who is actively working on it (e.g., Template:The Leading Hotels of the World). Frietjes (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is actually actively creating these articles. They weren't even creating the bloody list articles.  Navboxes are not repositories of redlinks for articles to be created, and redlinks hinder navigation by cluttering up a navbox.  If it doesn't aid navigation, it's out.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I'd be far more sanguine about the redlinks (but not all the other junk, which is IMO just as important an issue) if this were obviously being used to direct current work. But even then, it's a rather weak argument that the only thing that will compel people to write articles is the existence of a navbox to fill out. Navboxes should be the last part of the page structure to be put in place, not the first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If there's one person whose advice we should take on how to create articles, it's Dr. B, though he must be slipping if he only did 30 cantatas in a day. I'm not like him. As suggests, I could turn out stubs like this in, say, twenty seconds, and have all the links in these various templates (it isn't just this one, there are sixty or seventy Italian goats that I haven' even started on) turn blue in two or three hours (or I could ask Dr. B to do it for me and it'd be done in a tenth of the time). But I then wouldn't know which ones still needed to be written. I work in a different way; I prefer to spend an hour or so to make a stub like this, which is then ready for someone to start working on if the fancy takes them. I use the red links; they are there for a purpose; the horse breeds of France, chicken breeds of Italy and so on are most definitely finite sets. Red links are allowed at WP:NAVBOX;   is provided by the navbox template. The only real obstacle (with all respect for the opinions of  and ) seems to be that  finds it aesthetically unpleasing; a simple solution to that is: don't look at it! Oh, and the list of articles I've created is here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you've completely missed the point. It's not about aesthetics, but functionality.  If it doesn't aid navigation, it has no business being in a navbox.  It's what they're for.  Redlinks aren't "allowed", but if an editor says, "Hang on, I'm creating all of these articles in the next 24 hours", then the navbox can wait.  However, if they're going to be worked on over the next few months, then they can be added one by one.  The navbox is not an "articles for creation" tool to serve the way a single editor likes to work at the expense of functionality for all the other readers of Wikipedia.  JLAN - you have a sandbox - why not keep note there of which articles you want to create.  You can make your own templates there.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * just created three stubs (Angevin, Berrichon, and Charentais), if all the effort spent here was spent creating some stubs, there would be no need for any discussion. note that several of the notable horses listed are apparently not as notable on the French WP, where they are simply redirects to a more general article.  I am no horse expert, so I will leave it to horse experts to create the redirects for those. Frietjes (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Time out! Please review the work of User:Dana boomer, who is working closely with User:Tsaag Valren on translating the horse breed articles in fr.wiki - carefully and thoroughly - into English wikipedia. But she can only do so much at once; right now, she has Anglo-Norman horse at GA. (She has extensive goals for improving many existing articles, see her subpages) Going out and creating a bunch of stubs just to color in redlinks is beyond stupid in this situation; Tsaag as JLAN points out, is the top editor of horse articles on fr.wiki and  Dana is a respected member here, and admin, and - to my point - also a wikicup participant; if we go running around creating stubs, we probably deny her any chance to get them all ready for DYK, for which she could earn points. That is just a really tacky and mean thing to do. If anyone cares, yes, in fact articles ARE being created as time permits - others that were stubs arebeing expanded, this is clearly a DONOTDEMOLISH situation. It's under control. FWIW, the non-linked words are for those people who alre looking for alternative names; JLAN originally had them as piped links to other breed articles that discussed them, which worked for me, but Rob didn't like that and removed them early on, I put them back as unlinked, next to the name, so as to guide others. This one-man drama of Rob's needs to end, now. Montanabw (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's hardly a "one man drama", when 4 other editors agree with me! And we don't link to the same article more than once in a navbox. More clutter.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (addressed to everyone here) I really don't care what ya'll do with this. I think that having a category, a template and a list that all list French horse breeds is redundant and unnecessary. If I were in charge of the wiki, I would delete at least one and probably two of those altogether. But I'm not (in charge) and each person has their own favorite way to navigate, so to each his own. Creating little stubs for all of the minor extinct breeds is...whatever. I'll eventually get around to either expanding or redirecting them to the appropriate existent breed, since I'm apparently the only one who actually works on them after each little spat that results in a bunch of stub creations. I'm going to go write articles. Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, the fr-equivalent of this template, have no redlink in it. Just need a bit of time for en-translation - thanks to Dana Boomer for this. In the fr-wiki, we have a category, a template and a list, I don't really think they are redundant. Each have a specific goal. The list is not really a list, it also contains analysis : fr:Races chevalines de France. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * oh no, "if we go running around creating stubs, we probably deny her any chance to get them all ready for DYK". yet another reason to not leave them as redlinks in the navigation box. Frietjes (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing prevents someone from creating stubs, but the point is that it is disrespectful and rude to the people who actually do the work to go racing around creating one-sentence stubs that other people will have to fix. (BTW, Frietjes, you did a nice job on the ones you created, just FYI)  Montanabw (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny way to waste time ... if my knowledge about the English wiki were better, I could create all the red links in the evening. Please allow each contributor to go back to a normal contributor life ... --Tsaag Valren (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I originally opposed these nationality navboxes at the time they were created, but I've dropped that stick and have come to notice that they have been a good tool to find interesting articles. Where we are now is that a user who has never been involved with any animal projects at all has been altering dozens and dozens (and dozens) of navboxes to fit his personal interpretation of the guidelines. The results could be absurd; we wouldn't want all 350-400 horse breed articles in a single navbox, for example; nor do we need to remove all red links -- there are thousands of navboxes with redlinks. There are times when (like the Bach cantata examples above) where you need to list a set and THEn fill it in; anything else creates a disaster for a navbox because the navbox editor is unaware of new articles being created and amny new article creators don't think to edit a navbox. Anyone who has been on wiki for more than a week knows what a red link is, and ones in navboxes INSPIRE people do go create new articles. Montanabw (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not a "personal interpretation of the guidelines": it's precisely what the guidelines are intended to prescribe. It's telling that you've invoked the "never worked on these articles" line, because it amply demonstrates that the real problem is that people are too close to the subject and thus unable to allow what should be an extremely basic linking tool to do its job without having to fill it up with explanatory text and other cruft, including dozens of links to pages which don't exist out of a misguided need for completeness. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Chris, I respectfully disagree to some extent; the people with subject area knowledge are the best to know what needs to be navigated to and from, how users interested in the topic might think, how they might search; I personally am not going to get into a huge debate over whether to have an orange stripe at the top, or whatever, but a few red links are not going to hurt anybody. The one bit of verbiage that was in the box at the top could probably goto hidden text if you really want to make a federal case out of it, but then red links are clearly a set, the guidelines (unless someone changed them in the last week or so) do clearly indicate this is one time red links are OK; it's a fantastic tool to see at a glance what related articles still need to be created.  Montanabw (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Meh. The current formatting is basically tolerable, and once the minor quibbles about markup in the section below are fixed and the current "extinct" banner is moved to the side as a proper label I won't have any further objections. But that's a significant departure from the original formatting, which does justify Rob's initial protests. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by "proper label" - do you have an example of what you mean?  Montanabw (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Proper label per this example, which is a navbox that also needs the same attention as this one in its current reverted state. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OMFG, Rob, we actually might, kind of, sort of, maybe, agree on something! LOL!  I do like the label formatting of this layout better, though I still say that the red links should be kept for all the reasons previously discussed.  But I'd also ask  his views, as he created all the Italian templates too, I think.   Montanabw (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha! We've been focussing on the redlinks, but this was as important an issue. If we can agree to unclutter the navboxes with the superfluous text, pictures, etc, and make them compact and tidy like this one, we may be getting somewhere.  But are any of those extinct donkeys really going to get their own articles?  If the articles (here and there) are imminent, I'll back off, but if they are a couple of months away, then they shouldn't be included yet...   --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The "superfluous text" you objected to was removed before the lockdown.I agree with the reformatting of the headers as used in the donkey template, but that's it. Pictures are perfectly fine in a navbox and are allowed by the template syntax.    But I am quite adamant that the redlinks need to stay IF they are part of a set (per guidelines) as they are here, because I do believe that this encourages the creation of new articles.  And not "in a few months" - it can take years for a set to be completed, day by day month by month, particularly when there are only a few people who can do so.  Remove them and people will falsely think that a particular navbox lists all items in the set.  I think it's important to realize that many article writers know jack squat about navbox templates and how to edit them, you can't rely upon a new article creator to know they must a) write the article, b) add the wikiproject template to talk, c) update any list articles, and d) edit the navbox.  The navbox needs the links pre-loaded; here's a good example, Template:Iditarod winners; it still contains six redlinks, out of about 40 race winners.  Remove them and people will have no idea who needs to have an article created, whereas the navbox allows it to be seen at a glance, click on the link, and create. Lists are not the place for this, if you look at WP:Featured list criteria, too many redlinks will defeat a FLC.  Navboxes have no such restrictions.   Montanabw (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The navboxes actually have more restrictions! Redlinks are permitted in lists and articles, but NOT in navboxes, per WP:NOTRED.  And I think you hit the nail on the head - it seems clear that article creators who do not know how navboxes work are exactly the problem here.  Pictures are arbitrarily decorative - something that should be discouraged in navboxes, unless a damn good case can be made for how they improve the navbox.  Just because it is technically possible it does not mean that we should do it...  Your example of Iditarod winners is a good one though, that is what WP:NOTRED talks about when it mentions a "set".  That is a full set, and is very different to the case we have here.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You obviously have never worked on a featured list candidate, then. You are basically imposing restrictions on navboxes not supported by the guidelines (at least versions before you went in and changed things yourself) and the template syntax clearly allows images, which are included on hundreds if not thousands of navboxes.  As for this particular template, the creator and lead editor was, so my suggestion is that his views on this matter be considered before anyone makes any changes, and that also applies to the donkey templates noted herein.   Montanabw (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 February 2014
change "Bidet (horse)" to "Bidet horse" since the article has been moved.

Frietjes (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No objection to this fix, but maybe we wait until this whole shitstorm dies down and then do the overall cleanup?  Montanabw (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * no reason to wait a week when we can fix it now. Frietjes (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅, though per WP:NOTBROKEN this didn't actually need a fix anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * try reading WP:NOTBROKEN until you get to WP:BRINT. Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

List markup
For accessibility reasons, this template should make better use of list markup, For example:

should be changed to:

I'll be happy to apply the changes, once the template is unprotected. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * They're not sub-articles, though. Once the above editing dispute is resolved, I'd expect all of the parenthetical text simply to be removed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Chris, horse breeds are not species at all! These are alternative names for the same breed, or they are predecessor breeds that became part of the main one.  The reason to include them is for the person who says "Where is the Foo breed?" and they can look at the template and see that "oh, it's another name for the Foobar breed."  A navbox is useless if it doesn't actually help navigation.


 * @Andy, whatever works when we get this drama quieted down.  Montanabw (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If the parenthetical text is truly meaningful then it should be linked. This also helps build the web in the event that the predecessor breeds get their own articles. My first instinct is that it's somewhat OTT, but you'll presumably be a better judge of that than I. In the event it's kept then Andy is correct about how it should be marked up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Chris, so are you saying you'd prefer piped links like this? * Boulonnais (Mareyeur - Cauchoix -Trait Picard - Bourbourien - Petit Boulonnais) ? Or would you prefer the redirect cops go after us if we made them all blue by creating redirects to Boulonnais horse? I mean, seriously, I can't see any way not to be damned if you do and damned if you don't, here. Montanabw (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You should only link to each article once per navbox, and you shouldn't use redirects, as then the article link then isn't bolded in the navbox when you're at the target article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So we have a Catch-22 - Do you have any suggestions as to how we CAN list the alt names so we don't wind up with multuple duplicate articles or content forks and dramafests over merging?  Montanabw (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's unnecessary, but how about * Boulonnais/Mareyeur/Cauchoix/Trait Picard/Bourbourien/Petit Boulonnais ? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's about the least worst approach IMO. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that's a piped link from hell. I see no problem with either having the main article linked with the alt names in black text or else pipe link the alt names.  And trust me, I've cleaned up enough articles where there were multiple duplicates to know this is an issue.  End of story  Montanabw (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm, I think you missed Chris's point completely. He said "least worst".  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I just disagree with both of you. We have a fundamental disagreement about how navboxes can be useful. I think that allowing alt names and either black text or redlinks is helpful to the reader who may wonder how to find an article on "Foo" when "Foo" an alternate name for something else or when the article "Foo" should be created but hasn't been yet. End of story.   Montanabw (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

List of French horse breeds
The navbox lists a separate section "extinct" with a cross beside each article, to indicate the breed was extinct. So why the extra cross? Doesn't it violate WP:ICON?

And how is this not violating WP:TG's 1st bullet? The navbox isn't categorizing any of the articles beyond extinction.Curb Chain (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The guidelines you mention are just that – guidelines; so there's really no question of any sort of violation here. The navbox list those breeds in the intersection of the sets {horse breeds} and {domestic animals from France}, and divides that into two disjoint subsets, {extant} and {extinct}. Those that are extinct are categorised as "extinct horse breeds originating in France"; where's the problem? What article text do you see stored in this template? The crosses you object to are typographic characters, not icons; they're used in a number of navboxes such as Equus. I can't see that they serve any useful purpose here unless a distinction is made between those breeds that have actually become extinct and those that no longer exist because they have been merged; that wouldn't be a bad idea, though. Otherwise, I'd have no objection to removing them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So I've removed the crosses. But the template is simply listing List of French horse breeds in a different visual format; this is restating the list, which is why I stated it is storing article text (per WP:TG's 1st bullet).  Where is the navigational benefit in that?Curb Chain (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The crosses are a standard method of noting extinct animals throughout wikipedia; I think we need to discuss this further. If the template changes to remove that subheading, they will be needed; it also helps if someone starts moving around the names for some reason.  As for the distinction of lists and navboxes, there is no reason they cannot both exist, and you, Curb Chain, were just blocked for a week for sockpuppetry and placing this template up for deletion user the user name Algircal (see here) So I suggest you drop this stick and go elsewhere.  Montanabw (talk)  23:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The crosses are redundant when it's already listed as being extinct. Focus on the issue with the template, please.  Crosses used elsewhere have their own reasons for being on those templates, articles, etcetera.Curb Chain (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , whether you are here purely to disrupt is a question entirely relevant to this discussion. Are you? Whether or not you are, please read the comment I made in response to that editor's incompetent and ill-conceived nomination of this template for deletion; that a list and a navbox have similar content matters not in the least – they have different functions. Read WP:NOTDUP. And please don't edit-war - if your edit doesn't stick, discuss rather than making the same edit again. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In Equus the note "Extinct species are marked †" exists. The navbox here already identifies the species as extinct.  I don't see why this extra mark should exist.  So what do you mean when you say "that wouldn't be a bad idea, though"?Curb Chain (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Checkuser verified that Algircal and Curb Chain were the same user. As for the crosses, my thinking is that we want formatting to be consistent across multiple navboxes, though the existence of the subheader does make it a bit redundant. The subheader is a little clunky, though; I'd actually favor keeping the crosses with a key and tossing the subheader, but that is strictly my own personal opinion.  Montanabw (talk)  21:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So we have this? You are simply listing what's already on the List of French horse breeds.  There should be consistency across multiple navboxes.  But I don't see how breed templates should be listing article information with no added navigational benefit.  Please don't bring up the discussion at the TfD that passed.  The issues haven't disappeared so I don't see what sort of solution could be used to fix this template and possibly others.Curb Chain (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This navbox could be done in the manner you posted above, but that's a different discussion than the one here. The issue is if it should be deleted in lieu of a list. No, as JLAN said, WP:NOTDUP applies. Lists have a different purpose than navboxes, as the navbox transclusion is a far better formatting system then adding a "see also" and "list of foo link to every article. As for the rest, none of your TfDs passed (unless you snuck one in without notifying the appropriate users) Your presence here is disruptive; your tendentious and tedious discussions regarding navboxes goes back to your User:Una Smith days, when you were constantly creating useless templates and generally causing problems. You have no more credibility now than then, so please drop the stick.  Montanabw (talk)  05:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've undone your archive because of a number of issues: You are an involved editor and should not be archiving talk discussions as I am discussing the issues with the duplicated crosses and subheading and the closer of that TfD was involved in the discussion. This sort of aggression is going nowhere so I suggest that you drop the stick.Curb Chain (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * To the extent this discussion is focused on anything in particular (it seems to be three conversations at once: a) redundancy of the cross markup; b) whether to use a list or a navbox or what; c) Curb Chain's behavior), I tend to concur that the crosses are redundant in a navbox section titled "Extinct breeds". I think the question is whether we use this extension symbol always for extinct populations, or just where it is contextually conventional/helpful.  It seems to me that it is used in RS when contextually needed, and only when attached to a scientific name (a binomial or trinomial, or a higher taxon like an entire genus). For example, I see it used in lists of felid species where it is used to distinguish the extant from extinct taxa, but I do not see it used again and again for all the extinct taxa in works like The Big Cats and Their Fossil Relatives (Turner, 1997, Columbia U. Pr.). The use of it on WP for extinct domestic breeds and other populations of domesticates seems to be a novel adaptation of the style.  While I don't conclude that it's a bad one, using it by rote in every single place it could be used seems to be overkill, and is redundant in this case. Using it in prose describing the relationships between breeds, some of which are and some of which are not extinct, would seem to be reasonable, as would using it in an alphabetical list of breeds that mixed extant and extinct breeds. That said, I don't have a lot of horse-specific books, so maybe there's an equine-specific, off-WP convention to use it for vanished horse breeds? If there is, is it always applied robotically, no matter what the context?  No opinion on whether it's better to do away with the "Extinct breeds" heading, and keep the crosses and have an alphabetical list. Agree with others that the navbox substantially duplicating a list article is not actually a problem, per WP:CLT. Disagree that consistency between navboxes is much of a concern of any kind; no one compares them but the editors working on them. PS: Isn't the cross usually superscripted? It would probably aid readability if it were, especially for people who are non-native users of alphabetic languages, for whom this may be hard to distinguish from a "t".  PPS: It's without question redundant to use it like this: "†Charolais (†Bourguignon)"; "†Charolais (Bourguignon)" will suffice, since the parenthetical usage already conveys an understood "also known as".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Superscript sounds reasonable, but doesn't (at a very superficial glance) seem to be our practice - I note that it's not used at Felidae, for example. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this probably isn't really the right place to discuss this. Sat on it for a night, and it's more of a matter of "how should WP address extinct populations, with what markup, in what circumstances?"  Maybe it's better as just a general WT:MOS question.  I agree that the superscripting isn't being done consistently, but nothing about this is. :-)  Anyway, I'm not taking up Curb Chain's "issue" and running with it, I just agree that there's a redundancy question, but it's not particularly limited to this template. I think I'll raise it at WT:TOL first.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My drive-by comment on superscript is that the symbol might not be picked up by a screen reader if superscripted, thus presenting an WP:ACCESS issue. Beyond that, general MOS is my take, though at-a-glance distinguishing is helpful to the reader. Montanabw (talk)  06:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)