Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine

FEI World Cup articles are "stats" articles with too much detail
I've been rummaging through the articles on Template:FEI World Final and I'm finding a lot of excess information that doesn't need to be in an encyclopedia. Someone has been adding large tables of qualifying competitors, along with results tables for many of the preliminary competitions, and finally the winners (though not just the first 3 placings, often a long list of all competitors). Much of this information is a duplicate of what is available from fei.org, or some other "stats" websites. There is very little prose content; the creating wikipedian is duplicating their work from German-wiki, and their English is not very good.

What alerted me to this was a comment on a talk page asking what was meant by the strikethrough across competitor's names (no key, nothing in the content or talk page to explain it). Turns out, someone has been following the competitions and striking out competitors who had qualified, but didn't actually compete.

Why would we even list tables of qualifying competitors? Maybe list their names if they qualified (because that is an achievement, whether or not they actually compete in the finals), followed by the results of the competition. Some of the articles list huge tables keeping track of the "award points" from competition to competition. Come on, people, we don't need that level of detail in a Wikipedia article. That's what the FEI website is for. See also WP:NOTSTATS.

Here is an example of one of these articles with far more information than is necessary. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I have started to remove lists of qualifying competitors from these many competition pages, and to limit the display of placings to the top three medal winners. Every single article so far has inadequate citations for verification of even the top three winners. I have no desire to go wading through fei.org to find proper citations so I'm tagging the articles with More citations needed.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  00:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  02:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Horse leg protection § Merge proposal
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Horse leg protection § Merge proposal. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Ben Faerie
Hello, I've been working on old pages without sources. I wonder if anyone here could help with adding suitable refs to Ben Faerie. Thanks JMWt (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced articles and content
Is there any reason why we are keeping unsourced articles? For example, I came across Sport horse today. 15 years and no citations, all original research. Why not just toss such items into the Glossary of equestrian terms or Horse type or Horse breed or anywhere but its own standalone article with zero citations? Do we really need articles like this? When do we actually follow Wikipedia policy about OR? How long is too long for OR to remain?

Enquiring minds want to know. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Unsourced articles do not need to be deleted just because they have few sources. A lack of citations does not imply original reasearch, either.  The idea is to improve them.  We actually have several articles like this, draft horse, stock horse, polo pony, etc... and they were created for a specific reason: they have enough content and nuance that they can be a stand alone article, or at least a stand-alone list.  Also, for some, people were making "breed" articles out of them or adding them to the list of horse breeds with no definition or explanation. So my take is expand, cite and improve.  Montanabw (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikilinking "breed" to Horse breed versus List of horse breeds
From its creation in 2001, until 2009‎, Horse breed was simply a redirect to List of horse breeds. On 30 Jan 2009, an editor created and sourced an article for Horse breed, and today that article is substantially similar to that creation. On that same date in 2009, List of horse breeds was not as comprehensive or clear about "What is a horse breed?" as the new prose article, and it still isn't.

Most horse breed articles start out with a sentence like "Breedname is a breed of horse" with the word "breed" wikilinked to either Horse breed or List of horse breeds. Most of the horse breed articles were created prior to 2009 and so they use the wikilink to List of horse breeds. After 2009, many of them link to Horse breed, but the majority continue to link to the list-article.

Example code:
 * 1) Breedname is a breed of horse
 * 2) Breedname is a breed of horse
 * 3) Breedname is a breed of horse
 * 4) Breedname is a horse breed

Example #1 is common for articles written before 2009. Here are 158 wiki articles that link to the list article (and a few more here). Examples #2 and #3 and #4 make more sense. Here are 68 articles that correctly wikilink to Horse breed. (Disclaimer: I'm quite sure there are many more horse breed articles than these three insource searches can find.)

I think these older wikilinks should be changed to point to the Horse breed article because that is the prose-article which explains what is a horse breed, in depth, with adequate sources for verification. I consider it incorrect to link "breed" to the list-article because that doesn't give the depth of explanation that Horse breed does.

As I've gone through various horse breed articles to do work on them, I have started to change the older wikilinks to point to the Horse breed prose-article, away from the list-article, but on more than one occasion my edit has been reverted—specifically to revert that change.

I am interested in community feedback on whether these wikilinks should point to the prose-article or the list-article, and why you think it should be that way. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've got no problem linking to Horse breed when that's the concept. Can't think of the acronym to the wiki guideline on this, but there's clear direction that links shouldn't go to something that's a complete surprise.  I think there's a minor gray area in the individual breed articles where we say "The Foo horse is a horse breed," as I'm not sure if a casual reader would prefer to go to the list or the concept.  I'd say that the two articles themselves should each contain a clear link to the other in the lede so that if someone wanted one but got the other, they can switch easily.   Montanabw (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)