User talk:Montanabw/Archive 9

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at

talk

) 23:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your excellent work on promoting Oxbow (horse) to FA status! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

List of winged unicorns

I appreciate that you took the step of hiding the information rather than deleting it. Red Pen kept deleting stuff all over the place and it was getting ridiculous to try and keep track of things.

I'm still confused why extensive sourcing is needed for such a simple issue as "there's a unicorn with wings here". It's pretty much self-evident, and pictures were even present supporting a lot of the info. I mean when we have actual screenshots of Jewel Riders and She-Ra having them as co-stars and Kleo having one as the primary star, I don't see why that alone wouldn't serve as proof of the media containing the creatures...

Can't help but think some newer articles are being held to (unrealistically) higher standards than older ones. If we look at the various 'list of characters' associated with many series, each character (and sometimes the page altogether) may lack references on a case-by-case basis yet the data is kept up.

Do you have any suggestions on how I can begin adding things back? I am glad at least with it hidden rather than deleted that it will be a simple case of moving things 1 at a time from unseen to seen and take up the disputes individually. Compared to prior times when we have to come and guess what got removed. Ranze (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, things are being held to a higher standard. Most of the time that's a good thing, though here it seems a bit silly. I have to admit that I like that list primarily for the humor value. As for adding stuff in, you can start with my version with the hidden items, though I recommend you seek consensus of active authors and be careful not to violate WP:3RR. Then as you can find any external source that has an image, that meets WP:V for something like this, make said link visible. Montanabw^(talk) 05:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The article California Chrome you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:California Chrome for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jamesx12345 -- Jamesx12345 (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Howdy Hi - Just a very polite ping to various trusted editors and my talk page stalkers: on Derby Day (Saturday, May 3) can you please help keep an eye on a recent GA that I've worked on, California Chrome? The horse is the favorite for the race, already has a rabid fan base, the "Chromies" (in a good way, mostly) but the article is already getting anon IP edits from people who are making random odd edits. I have meticulously sourced this article and if there are errors, they are in the sources consulted (or at least my interpretation of them) and, while of course any article can be improved, anyone changing material needs different/better sources to correct errors and not just put in random rants. I think everyone around here knows the drill, but... thanks in advance. I'm driving back home that day and will be on the road about 7 hours, I'm hoping I can at least catch the race itself in a cafe or something along the way, I won't likely have internet access during the race itself and other eyes will be much appreciated, thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 06:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's

Czar (submissions) and Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic

Please can you clarify this for me. ThanksEriskaypony (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You are referring to this edit, I presume. Essentially, all that decision verifies is that there was a dispute, a very basic amount of (useful) background and that the complaint of the one group was dismissed as "vexatious"- The problem with your edit is that it went beyond the source cited, attributed motive, and added editorializing content not in the source. (FWIW, findings 14 and 15 of that decision are useful info that could be added to the article) So basically, I tossed the edit because it was unencyclopedic in tone. Take a look at

WP:SOAPBOX. If these guidelines are not helpful to clarify things, feel free to post a message on the article's talk page and we can discuss further. If you would like to see how we can handle a controversy within a breed between two registries, see what we did at Andalusian horse, where they also have competing breed organizations fighting for recognition. Montanabw^(talk)

18:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL! I noticed that too, but someone appears to have fixed it. I think there were random formatting characters buried in the lead somewhere that I neglected to strip out when I wrote the blurb, but it seems to be working now. Thanks for the heads up, though. Much appreciated. Montanabw^(talk) 17:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, we don't just do this any more. We discuss individual cases and get a consensus for them before adding them to ITN/R. You're obviously more than welcome to initiate those discussions should you have the time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I posted there. My bad!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 19:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

No bother. Don't expect an answer this side of your lifetime. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for offering this - I can put it to good use. How great to find a horse lover! You have really carried through on that. Enjoyed your great article on Chrome, and it led me to look further. My parents had lived in Louisville when young and saw a great horse win the Kentucky Derby, so I was tracking that down. Your piece on "free rein" on your User Pge made me laugh. Reading when people misuse "free reign" for "free rein" also makes me crazy. Even if they didn't know where the true expression came from, their version usually doesn't make any sense. I wonder how long it will continue, with people having no knowledge of the correct term? Parkwells (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help! Which horse were you looking for? Pop by here any time; I'm guessing that 90% of the 4000+ articles on my watchlist are horse-related, and the ones that aren't are mostly Montana and the west-related. (Acknowledging that this includes

rocky mountain oysters, cow tipping, and jackalope). It's an enjoyable corner of wiki. As for misuse of words, I like to explain that "Miss America's privileges during her reign were reined in when she was caught out partying in the rain!" And you just don't want to get me started on why the fetlock is NOT an "ankle"! :P Montanabw^(talk)

17:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that you have reverted my edits. My edit changed dates to the DMY format because the article contains the template {{Use dmy dates|date=July 2011}}. If you are sure that there is in fact a consensus for another date format then please change that. If you wish, I can come back and re-edit when the matter is settled as I have an AWB tool kit for formatting dates either way. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll fix it, I have no clue who put that template in, (I never bother unless it's an issue) and the only other significant content editor hasn't been on wiki in years. Montanabw^(talk) 20:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's all OK, I have also redacted your real name from this message for your own safety. Montanabw^(talk) 21:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

To be populated place, people must be living in the place. Otherwise, it is a former populated place (no trace of it exists) or a ghost town (some trace left). A place cannot be both a populated place and a ghost town. Also the populated place category has been split into subcategories for cities, towns, unincorporated communities, former populated places, etc.. Same with article text. And I only go by what is in the text of the article, not some outside non-RS information. Thanks Hmains (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

In some cases I saw that you changed the text to match your categories. You will also note that I did not remove the label from some articles. And a "ghost town" can still have some inhabitants, Bannack, Montana is a classic example. A ghost town has a specific definition in the American west, implying that, yes, it was abandoned, but not that it is Sometimes a town is abandoned and obtains ghost town status, then people move back to help maintain it if it is viewed as a historic monument. Virginia City, Montana is, for example, a thriving town again and a county seat. Census data is the RS, if the census defines it as a unincorporated area with population, then it's not a "former populated place" (which is, by the way, a term that comes from where? ) Montanabw^(talk) 17:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I made changes when the text disagreed with itself. 'Former populated places' comes from the 4 year old category tree in WP Category:Former populated places which previously was Former settlements. Bannack, Montana text states "The last residents left in the 1970s." so it has no people according to is article. In any case, a few houses in the general area where a populated place used to exist does not make it a populated place--no more than a few houses in an area would make a new location a populated place in the first instance. Also the status of what a location is in WP is always present tense unless the word 'former' is used, such as 'former cities', 'former census-designated places', etc. At the state level, there are categories for 'ghost towns' (as a subcategory of former populated places) and 'former populated places'; at the county level, there are no categories for ghost town (too few in a county) but only categories for 'former populated places'. Hmains (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You should do the research to be sure you have it correct, that means checking for population data, though I admit that getting data on unincorporated communities (example, Craig, Montana can be a challenge, plenty of people there, try finding a population statistic) (see here). I would agree there is no need for a Ghost Towns by county cat, ghost towns by state is plenty. But ghost town is not synonymous with abandoned or vice-versa; take the cities that are now drowned by reservoirs for example, they are clearly abandoned, but they are not "ghost towns." These little town articles largely are of poor quality and info taken from less than ideal sources. Montanabw^(talk) 21:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Follow up: USGS lists Bannack as a populated place. Note that USGS does distinguish; the ghost town of Corbin is a "locale," whereas [http://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=136:3:0::NO:3:P3_FID,P3_TITLE:781665,Corbin Corbin itself is a populated place. These terms are defined here. I suggest that this be the guide as to where you categorize these places. (@Hmains: Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I only use the article text in determining categories; I do not do research (my work choice); others can do that and write the text to match the references. Categories are based on the text only. And as you note, it is not possible to obtain reliable population figures on non-census counted places--there are not even defined boundaries to be considered. As far as USGS goes, I see various errors/non-updated information in it. Places that from other information are clearly non-populated for long periods of time still show up in USGS as 'populated'. Sometimes it seems that once USGS gets ahold of a name of a place, it never drops it or updates its content. What my category work generally does is put the place in 'former populated' at the county level when the article says it is a ghost town or otherwise indicates it has no people; and puts the place as 'ghost town' or 'former populated' at the state level depending on whether the article indicates there are still remains of the town or not. Hmains (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well to say "former populated" in absence of a RS is

WP:SYNTH on your part. USGS may be imperfect, but where are you finding more recent info? (sincerely curious as to source) Many people editing articles don't mess with the categories and are unfamiliar with what's out there, so there is a need for synergy and collaboration. Montanabw^(talk)

22:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

As I have written several times here, my source is the article text. I was just stating what I have found when occasionally looking at USGS, not indicating I either use it or ignore it. Hmains (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It is also obvious that editors prior to me are ignoring this 'reliable source' since USGS often calls a place a 'populated place' but the article says (wrongly) that the place is a 'ghost town'. A place cannot both be a populated place (has people) and a ghost town or former populated place (no people). All these articles' text should be reviewed and corrected as required. Hmains (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's clear that some "ghost towns" do have small populations; usually a combination of historic abandoned buildings and newer structures on the periphery. So "ghost town" is something of a colloquialism, and not a synonym for "former populated place." I would suggest that maybe where there is some question (Corbin, Montana being an example as shown in the USGS sources above), just keeping the ghost town label but not former populated places. JMO. Montanabw^(talk) 00:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, buildings do not equal people. 'Former populated place' means no people; ghost town is a subset of former populated place, one which still has some trace left of it but still no people. A place with people is not a ghost town anywhere. Montana is not a special case. Hmains (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but I have about a dozen ghost towns within an hour's drive of me so don't tell me what a ghost town is; the new buildings are houses with people in them. DUH! Montanabw^(talk) 15:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
    • A few houses with people in an area do not make a populated place in the first places; a former populated place or ghost town which later has some people move into the area does not make it a populated place again, either. It is still a former populated place or a ghost town. Hmains (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

And your source for this definition of a ghost town, oh great one, was pulled from your butt or can you provide me a link to a reliable source? By your standard, half the populated places in Montana would not be. Montanabw^(talk) 02:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

On 17 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Art Sherman, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, with his first entrant, California Chrome, 77-year-old Art Sherman became the oldest horse trainer to ever win the Kentucky Derby? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Art Sherman. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where to say it, TFA or here:

precious again, You win for horses, whether they win or not, --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 20:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. Luckily, today they won! Montanabw^(talk) 04:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

All must have prizes! --

talk

) 06:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, no worries about the revert, only I did a fairly heavy overhaul of the article a couple of years back for Pesky, and I thought I'd have another look with a new toy – new to me, anyway: the things I deleted showed up as errors, because they're not used for references. Maybe that's fine and forget it, but Wanderings in Roman Britain is from 1926 so probably very old hat, leaving only Medieval Archaeology: An Encyclopedia from 2001 as something probably useful: thing is, I did check back to see if there were ever any related references with page numbers and I didn't find any. I did the delete with something Eric said to me the other day in mind, about referencing errors, in an article I've just been crazy enough to nominate as a FAC... And I couldn't get sight of the Encyclopedia. Just telling you what I saw in a hopefully helpful sort of way! :o) Nortonius (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, then all is well. Looked like a drive-by. Maybe park the removed sources on the talk page so they can be found again should they be needed for something. Montanabw^(talk) 02:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Or in further reading/external links depending on whether they're books or web sites. Dana boomer (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking further reading, as neither Wanderings in Roman Britain nor the Encyclopedia are online, as far as I can see. I'd be interested to know why exactly they were included: the Encyclopedia seems a likely source, but there might be some very nice little nuggets in Wanderings. (I hope Pesky's ok, anyway, I'm sure she'd be able to tell us) That being the case, though, while Wanderings seems a very obscure source without knowing what's in it, the Encyclopedia seems too general a source, yet covering only the medieval period, to fit in a section for further reading in that article. On balance, I think Montanabw's first suggestion of parking those two items on the talk page seems best. Nortonius (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

First, a thank you to all my talk page stalkers for helping with the California Chrome article, which got 35,000 hits on Preakness Day and another 50,000 hits the day after. Second, I am in a mood to see if we can have some fun on wikipedia: If anyone feels like it, especially if you watchlist the article, how about changing your signature to be green and purple (Chrome's stable colors), the way I just did, at least through the 2014 Belmont Stakes. (If you've never done this, go to preferences and enter the same syntax as in my signature, only with your user name and user talk instead). I don't think this would be viewed as POV-pushing or as "ownership" of the article, it's just fun! I suppose you could even do different stable colors if you want to cheer for one of the other horses, but I think it would be a fun way to say that you are watching the article and - maybe - acknowledge that you are upholding WP:BLP when it comes to his people's assorted feel-good stories. Montanabw^(talk) 17:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Is "unload" a term of art in horse-related topics? It could be but this sentence does read a bit oddly to me: Once the plane landed, however, he refused to unload until he was turned around and backed down the ramp; Alan Sherman explained later that this was his typical way of unloading from ground-based transportation as well. Normally animate objects don't unload; things are unloaded; it is done to them by others, and not by them. Maybe Once the plane landed, however, he refused to be unloaded until he was turned around and backed down the ramp; Alan Sherman explained later that this was his typical manner of egress from ground-based transportation as well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I think "as well" is superfluous.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Yup, it's a horse word, we load and unload horses into and out of trailers all the time. We probably should say "disembark" but we don't. As for the rest, most of your grammar edits are spot-on, and the few that aren't at least signal me that a rewrite of some sort is needed, so a tip o' the hat to you. Montanabw^(talk) 22:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not that it matters since the change is in, but the issue wasn't the sense of people unloading and unloading horses, it was that when you say "he refused to unload" – it has the horse [refusing] to unload himself rather than it being done to him. Glad to help. I've made it to the end now. Are you planning to go to FAC?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

FAC yes, but not until after the madness of the Belmont dies down and we know the rest of the story! ;-) As for grammar, I suspect you are right, but we horse folks do say that we "ask" horses to load or unload themselves into trailers - it has to be to some degree voluntary on their part or else it's one heckuva fight that often results injured people and/or injured animals. We're weird that way; I think it reflects a huge debate in horse-land over whether the horse is a companion animal or mere livestock. We definitely load and unload cattle, but what DO we do with dogs when we ask them to get in a car? Is that "loading" or does the dog simply "enter"? Montanabw^(talk) 23:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hard to say since car = dog park = dog tries to get into car even if we are just walking by it; there's never a need to ask, though once in a while, car = vet, which = very unhappy dog.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

But does the dog "load" himself? LOL! And let's not start with cats...! =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 23:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping thank you M. You may have already noticed that I have added a hidden message to try and alert other editors who want to add items to the see also section. While they don't work 100% of the time I have been pleasantly surprised with how often they do help. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome and LOL. On that note, be sure to check the "snarkives" link off my main user page. I always accept new nominations! 17:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Great stuff. I will keep it in mind and let you know if I come across anything worth your perusal. Both your talk and user pages are a joy. They rank right up there with User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior and User:KillerChihuahuas useful thoughts section. Depending on how far north you live in Montana, Douglas WY may be halfway between us. As a kid it was always one of my favorite places (the other was Chugwater - such a great name) that my family drove through on the way to visit grandparents in Casper. I loved the jackalope statue in the center of town. Happy editing whenever possible ;-) MarnetteD | Talk 18:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You are very kind, thank you! Yes, I am familiar enough with the I-25 corridor and have passed the Chugwater exit (yes, it is so fun just to have a reason to say "Chugwater!") - I have extended family in your state, let's say I can leave my home and be in theirs at the end of a long days' drive. Feel free to drop me email for more chat on that topic! Ah jackalope... I actually have not driven through downtown Douglas to see the Jackalope statue, so I clearly am suffering from severe cultural deprivation, but I have seen ALL the large fiberglass animals that dot I-94 as one crosses North Dakota, if that counts!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 18:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Cultural deprivation" heehee. The ND trip sounds a treat! I should have mentioned that my families trips were in the 1960s and early 70s - before I-25 had extended that far north. Thus, we went through each one of those towns rather than around them. The gas station at C had "Chugwater Chili Mix" on its shelves though I can't remember how it tasted now. The Interstate brought about an amazing change - the five hour trip to Casper turned into a two to three hour one depending on traffic. MarnetteD | Talk 18:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I am old enough to remember that era as well; the interstates were mostly done up here by the mid-70s, but I remember my dad changing a flat tire on our horse trailer pulled over to the side of a narrow secondary road in those days when the Interstate sort of came and went at random intervals... Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think our aims are that different here -- should we try to start a new article about native dance basically from scratch? I could withdraw the deletion nomination, and we could move the page to a new title... Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I'd support a move to something like Alaskan Native dance, and we could build from there. Montanabw^(talk) 19:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Re your revert on Great Northern - how does the entry "One of a number of railways; see Great Northern Railway (disambiguation)" (two places above) not cover it? --Redrose64 (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe put it first, it was buried in there. Montanabw^(talk) 16:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Montanabw. As you've said you're planning on a FAC, one thing I noticed in the article (which is really shaping up, good job) is retrieval dates given for paper sources. Not an issue I care much about but you will inevitably be asked to remove them at a FAC so I thought I'd note it to give you one less issue when you nominate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:Hmmm. If it were google books, I'd agree with you. But here, all were versions accessed online, and sometimes we have news articles corrected and changed after the fact, (plus I'm already having dead link problems) so I think I should keep the access dates. Basically, I have some folks saying I should use "citenews" for the papers, even when accessed online, others saying use citeweb, frankly, I usually just do whatever the formatting gods ask of me in any given week because it changes... Thoughts on the deeper issue hers? Montanabw^(talk) 19:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said it's not an issue I get excited about. But at every FAC/GA I've been asked to remove them. Agreed: it's sometimes quite unclear whether a newspaper's website story is actually just a digitization of what was printed, and so when that's unclear it seems an accessdate is useful. When it is clear, such as, for example, the Wall Street Journal cite, the accessdate is harmless surplusage – again, not my issue; just raising it as an anticipated issue for you and maybe I'm wrong about that. As for cite templates, no one should ever give a damn which you are using so long as it gives consistent and properly formatted output the same as any other template used. A true issue of form over substance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

When I took Mucho Macho Man to FAC, it survived with them, as did Oxbow. I got smacked for some inconsistent referencing, but that was fair. So far, so good, but I'll keep the possibility in mind. Montanabw^(talk) 20:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't realize you were filling Prep 4 at the same time. When I went to copy and paste the ones I chose, I found you had already used them. I'm stopping editing Prep 3 now. There are quite a few good hooks available, but since I approved them, I couldn't promote them. Best, Yoninah (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Tell me which ones you approved and I can promote them. I'm done with prep 4 now. Would you be so kind as to promote nasal strip for me? Montanabw^(talk) 23:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I approved:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Rahul Shewale
• Template:Did you know nominations/T. K. Bellis
• Template:Did you know nominations/Matthaios Kofidis
• Template:Did you know nominations/Justina Ford (she'd be good for a picture slot)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Mischief Makers

I swapped one of the two India hooks that you put in Prep 4 with something else. Hope that's okay. Soman is really busy lately!

Do you want the picture slot in Prep 1 for nasal strips, or will any slot do? Yoninah (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a good picture. It's going in the first slot. Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yay for pictures. I'll see if I can promote some of these others to finish up prep 3 for you. I think the preps will all be full then. Montanabw^(talk) 23:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You have 2 India hooks again in Prep 3. Yoninah (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I spoke too soon :). Keep up the good work. I'm going to bed. Yoninah (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Heh, tons of stuff from everywhere but the USA lately. Also tough to find enough stuff without images, I had to promote a couple without pics to get these sets done. Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your efforts to fill out the prep areas and tackle the backlog at WP:DYK. v/r - TP 06:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Good morning, Montanabw. I would like to ask you a question about one of my edits, that you reverted, on the article Troika (driving). I'm curious about the reason why you cancelled this edit. Is this because there is a YouTube link as a reference? Regards — KiwiNeko14 _(Meow) 09:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Diff link: [2]

Two reasons, one is that the material is irrelevant

WP:OR. YouTube can, in some cases, be used as a reference source, for example, a news story about troikas, perhaps, but it was mostly the trivia aspects that I was concerned about. Montanabw^(talk)

16:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Go, CC horse! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all! Montanabw^(talk) 19:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, You recently reverted changes I made to the open range page. Specifically, you kept in the language that says Larson-Steiner eliminated the open range doctrine altogether in Montana. I do not believe that is a correct statement of the law. I would encourage you to read the Larson-Steiner opinion again, paying careful attention to paragraphs 28 and 29, and reconsider your edit.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.128.250 (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The Montana Law Review says otherwise, but I can refine the edit to more closely match the analysis of the top legal minds in the state. Montanabw^(talk)

If you provide a cite for the MLR article, I would like to read it.

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.128.250 (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I made a tweak to the article and included a link to the MLR article. The whole situation is extremely complex and difficult to summarize. Montanabw^(talk) 22:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Montana, I'll take "chic" at face value if only for grammatical reasons--"hippie chick cowgirl" is three (really, four) nouns in one compound; "hippie chic cowgirl" has "hippie chic", a fairly common phrase, as a adjectival phrase modifying "cowgirl". In other words, I'm giving her the stylistic benefit of the doubt. I'll get back to the DYK today or tomorrow (I'm teaching today); I do need to look closely at the sources, some of which, as you know, aren't really, well, books or printed magazines and papers. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The gal has a fashion line too, so you might be right. Could also be a play on words, "hippie chick" being lingo from my generation... the article is only about start-class, but I'm already rather sick of her interview style, can't stand people who seem to talk in all caps... the real reason she gets an article from me is because I want the wikicup points, LOL! I stumbled across a song she wrote about California Chrome - the song is so saccharine it nearly sent me into a diabetic coma, but hey, she passes WP:GNG (for the video hitting #1 on CMT, if nothing else) Montanabw^(talk) 16:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's the winning horse, right? Remind me to buy more bourbon and pick more mint on Friday. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That was the Kentucky Derby drink! For the Belmont, if bourbon is your beverage of choice, then you want a Belmont Jewel. However, some claim the official drink is still the Belmont Breeze. Take your pick! Post time is about 6pm Eastern Time, but the "pregame" show will be running a couple hours out and should be worth the watch. Montanabw^(talk) 17:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I always thought the Belmont's was a

Long Island Iced Tea for some reason. Writ Keeper ⚇♔

17:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Before the Belmont Breeze was some godawful concoction called a White Carnation. And yes, California Chrome. Actually, he has his own drink, also with Bourbon: http://bevvy.co/cocktail/california-chrome-2014/JSl . Montanabw^(talk) 17:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ha, thanks for setting me straight. But that Belmont drink, no, I think I'll skip that. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Bourbon straight up, no chaser? Montanabw^(talk) 21:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Rye > bourbon >>> beer. Sazeracs are great, as far as cocktails go. Absinthe by itself (well, it's diluted, but still) is actually also quite good, despite the fact that I'm not normally a fan of licorice. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Well, you might think you're

Lost in the Ozone Ag'in. Montanabw^(talk)

21:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

My concern was only that it gives an inaccurate result - 16 stone is exactly 224 lbs, by definition, but by converting through kg first you get 223. If you want metric first, I might suggest we just do a stones-kg conversion by template, followed by a manual stones-lbs conversion, which would avoid the inaccuracy. By that same token, if you want metric-first, the hands/inches/cm conversion could have a hands-cm template conversion followed by a manual hands-inches conversion, since again the latter is fixed by definition. Russ3Z (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, frankly, if it matters that much to you, I don't care that deeply about it. As for hands, see my toolbox (off my user page) for ways that those who care can flip the order of things in the template, the thing has been refined to go any way anyone could ever want to take it. Montanabw^(talk)

People are "who", everything else is "that" or "which", when I was taught English. When did naming an animal anthropomorphize it? MOS: Number lists one-nine, then 10; sorry about the 9.

Well, naming does in fact "anthropomorphize it." And "it" is already defined as a he or a she, also. The world is changing from when you and I might have been taught in school, as in those days the churches also taught that animals had no souls, and words like "n-----r" and such were part of a lot of people's everyday vernacular. There is room to distinguish between animals and humans without the need reduce sentient creatures to equal status with an inanimate object. Montanabw^(talk) 23:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

But your not supporting the Classical music projects attempts to have their own "style" at their articles is now going to bite us all. What that did was basically confirm that wikiprojects can't set their own guidelines on style or naming - so now... you can't use the equine project's knowledge to keep the breed names as they should be. Consider this not so much a "I told you so" but a "wish things were different" because the birds project lost out and now we've got the MOS-pushers on our backs. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Au Contraire. I'm not arguing there for wikiproject consensus, I'm arguing for 12 exceptions to WP:MOS based on individual factors. We can most certainly use our individual KNOWLEDGE of each of us on a case-by-case basis, and so no wimping out of conflict on your part, dearie. Rules are tools, they change the rules, you find new tools. Same end result. And, frankly, the classical music people's bullying of reasonable dissent, failure to AGF and refusal to budge one inch to reach consensus was what led to the result, not any inherent moral rightness for their position; bad facts make bad law. Wikiproject consensus was always a fragile platform but can still be used as a guideline - it's clearly being used to keep infoboxes out of most classical music articles. So weigh in. Montanabw^(talk) 21:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I already did. And "wikiproject" knowledge is already being discounted. And also any "horsie" papers or things. Someone is arguing for "American paint horse".... I've already put up examples, but it's not my fight totally. I've been involved with it ... sitewide. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 156#Bird common name decapitalisation - that's what is going to be put forth as the "rule". Ealdgyth - Talk 21:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:CHEESE . Just make your case and keep making it. Proper nouns are proper nouns, that's not a wikiproject issue, it's an expert issue. And dammit, we are experts. TPSers who care, the shitstorm is at Talk:American_Paint_Horse#Requested_moves. Montanabw^(talk) 23:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

(TPS) Ye Gods, what a shitshow that link is. But you should know experts don't matter when it comes to sacred texts like the MOS. Real world standards are as nothing compared to this manufactured reality... Intothatdarkness 13:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What Intothatdarkness said. Nortonius (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, reality is manufactured by those who show up, I guess that's my take. Onward through the fog! Montanabw^(talk) 23:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I saw the tick you gave it yesterday. I also saw that Storye Book has made an impressive effort to approve all the nominations that have been lying around since March. I'm just a bit wary to start promoting all these hooks, because of the reams of discussion and argument that went into them previously. I admit I'm gun-shy from last month's barrage of criticism of DYK hooks both from within the project and without. I thought I'd wait a couple of days and see if anyone responds to your bold move, and if the coast seems clear, then promote it. Your thoughts? Yoninah (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Works for me, I did it a couple days ago and haven't been slapped yet, but who knows? Nothing like a dramafest to make a person gun-shy! Montanabw^(talk) 19:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

SCOMN! Best laugh I've had all week! @Fuhghettaboutit:. You just wait, I'll cook up something ... Bwahahahahahaaaa! Montanabw^(talk) 17:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not only did I fake block you but I've psychically stalked you and using my powers, I've downloaded from the collective unconscious exactly what you'll be watching tomorrow at 7:00 p.m EST. Neat trick, huh? (I will be watching too:-))--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Nah I'll be reverting vandals by then, post time is 6:52, so by 6:55 I'll be living on wiki. (Note: Best to tun in no later than 6:30 pm EST if you want to be sure to catch the race; post time is, at best, an estimate! Montanabw^(talk) 00:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Too bad California Chrome didn't win, but terrific work on the article, and one way or another, it looks like it will be an FA pretty soon. Thanks again for your hard work! Go Phightins! 23:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You folks have all been great. Your help is appreciated! Keep vandal watching for a couple hours, this is the peak of the hits. Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey all, California Chrome article and 2014 Belmont Stakes articles should be watchlisted for the next 24-36 hours. Anticipate some vandalism, whether the horse wins or loses. We have several regular editors who will make responsible edits to update the articles with race results, besides me, but be alert for people making massive content changes, after the last race, someone deleted half the article! If all else fails, revert to an edit of mine. I'm going to do a couple that I will identify as a baseline for reversion if needed. Thanks for everyone's help! Montanabw^(talk) 02:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again M. Thanks to you and all the other editors involved for the work in keeping up with this. It is amazing to think that only 25 (or is it 26 I am messing up the math) had passed between Citation and Secretariat and now we are on the way to doubling that number. Having watched so many TC hopes go up in smoke at The Belmont it leaves me more impressed then ever at what Secretariat did. To say nothing of the thrills of watching Alydar and Affirmed. Speaking of which when did Steve Cauthen get so old? I turn my back for a second and another decade goes flying by :-) Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 23:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, what is it with Cauthen? I'm still 18, what happened to him? LOL! I guess for 50-something he's doing OK, at least he isn't in a wheelchair like poor Ron Turcotte. Montanabw^(talk) 23:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

just some Wikignome edits. the adjective form of tonalist, while widely used, should, i believe, be trumped by the proper noun use in this case. I am a complete newcomer to editing horse articles, but i like to try my hands at new subjects, and to make sure little details are corrected. thanks for noticing. i remember secretariat. this race today was very exciting, and sad for this Cali native. but, hooray to the winner! hope he gets an apple.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You're doing great. Go ahead and swipe @Tigerboy1966:'s default style for the article, see, for example, Wicked Strong. Needs an infobox, even if not all the data is in it yet, Tigerboy usually does the pedigrees 'cause he's good at it. Go to Equibase.com and type in the horse's name for his racing record. Montanabw^(talk) 23:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

err sorry but I already created

Tonalist (horse). Tigerboy1966 

23:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we merge and redirect? To one or the other? Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Follow up: If we can use just "Tonalist," I think that's great, but I want to be sure we have no WP:PRIMARY fights with anyone - a tonalist is a type of art painting, right? Montanabw^(talk) 23:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to merge and redirect. It's 1am in Britain and I'm off to bed! Tigerboy1966  00:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

YOu are a trouper! Thanks for the quick work! Montanabw^(talk) 00:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, disappointing results today. Just wanted to note that you mentioned that California Chrome lost, and how, in the lead, but didn't source it. Yoninah (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Heh, heh, heh, I'll get sources up as soon as Equibase publishes their damn chart! (Chewing fingernails, ripping hair). Montanabw^(talk) 00:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to give a big shoutout to everyone who helped keep an eye on things today, and especially a tip of the hat to @Go Phightins!: For putting temporary semi-protection on the article BEFORE the race and saving us all from an onslaught of trolls - the article got 79,000 hits on Belmont day! Whew! Montanabw^(talk) 06:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pony! (Can't wait to ride it!) Yoninah (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the lovely pony! :) DBaK (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback around the horse racing project. im only editing here (after my initial excitement watching the race) because you were kind enough to award me with a pony! That seems to have inspired me. that also increases my ability to assume good faith and be bold, and to also accept criticism or reversion without rancor. if anything i attempt is off base somehow, let me know. I dont know who is keeping the project articles assessed, but thats hard work, and deserves credit. many projects dont keep up with it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

We'd love to have more help both at WikiProject horse racing and WikiProject equine (WPEQ). Feel free to pop by and sign up for either or both projects, between them there are about 12,000 articles (9,000 in horse racing alone). We tend to assess most articles in both projects as "low" unless there is some real clear justification for a higher rating. We also have many stubs in need of expansion. Both projects have active members willing to help! Montanabw^(talk) 18:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This ... I'd say not all TC winners are "high" importance, but some are. SS, Affirmed, War Admiral, Secretariat, Citation, and possibly Count Fleet are definitely high as they went on to have a big breeding influence. Omaha maybe. Sir Barton, no. Assault, no. Whirlaway and Gallant Fox, maybe but probably not. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That's my thinking too. I'd say that if there is a push to reassess, we should take it up at WP Horse racing; those are some really nice folks over there these days and they've been quite reasonable and thoughtful. You think Slew can be justified as high due to his influence as a sire, I'm OK with that. Montanabw^(talk) 19:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I would expect high importance to be restricted to horses who have had a significant impact beyond their own country over a long period of time (several generations) or who have had a very big cultural impact. Tigerboy1966  19:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

So, besides Eclipse, the foundation stallions and such, what would be other examples, vis-a-vis, for example, Seattle Slew or other Triple Crown winners? I think Ealdgyth is correct as to it's a case-by-case basis, but where would you rank, say, Secretariat or Citation, and would there be horses of equivalent importance in the UK that we Yanks could look at to see what we think? Montanabw^(talk) 20:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This been one of the busiest weekends ever. Apart from all the issues relating to the "Big Two" races, which attracted lots of well meaning new editors as well as a few outright trolls, we have had to do updates for lots of top horses including Princess of Sylmar, Beholder, Just A Way, Cirrus des Aigles, Palace Malice etc. The French also saw fit to run their biggest hurdle race of the year on the same weekend. I even managed to forget my nephew's birthday, and much grovelling ensued. If it wasn't so much fun I'd complain! Tigerboy1966  20:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Heh, forget family in favor of horse racing and wikipedia? Sounds normal tome! I was so grateful to GoPhightins! for putting semi-protection on California Chrome, that article got more hits than the Belmont Article did. And not one troll edit and only a few editors, those solid. Didn't have to revert a thing, which is lucky because the article for poor Victor Espinoza got hammered a bit, though it could have been worse. Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

On 9 June 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Templeton Thompson, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Templeton Thompson combines her interests in horses and country music in songs such as "When I Get This Pony Rode"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Templeton Thompson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll confess to being mildly embarrassed about creating that one, as I am still recovering from the diabetic coma into which the saccharine tone of her tunes placed me, but what the heck, I have a small soft spot for novelty country music tunes and ones with funny hooks. ("She got the gold mine, I got the shaft") Montanabw^(talk) 18:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a refdesk thread proposing, well,

OH! I am so on that one! Too good to miss! Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 02:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting i look at it. i feel it is an article, and a potentially great article, and the list aspects are minor. PS this work on horse articles is getting me interested in the human/horse partnership, as a parallel to the human/dog partnership. I will probably actually READ an article on horses that touches on this. wow, reading an article....Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL! I appreciate your graciousness and care as you look over the organizational issues that have languished a long time around here. Too few horses to pull too many wagons, if I may stretch the metaphor -- to the breaking point... heh, heh, heh...! Domaybe ping

WT:EQUINE if you want to do anything terribly drastic, just to avoid reinventing the wheel; there is some project consensus on certain issues that is quite long standing, some of which solved yucky edit wars that we'd like to keep solved... ;-) Montanabw^(talk)

05:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I always wanted a pony. :) Stylteralmaldo (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am very sorry to do this, but I have some important things going on in real life Thursday and Friday, and I ought to be preparing today and tomorrow, but since I don't trust myself not to get engrossed, I am going to have to take a forced wiki-break from now until Friday afternoon, at which point I will resume the GAN. Again, sorry, but I need to handle the real life matter. Thanks for understanding. Go Phightins! 00:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries, 'User:Go Phightins!! Being able to step away from "teh wiki" to manage real life is a sure sign of sanity! Montanabw^(talk) 17:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I know you are active in editing California Chrome. Are you aware of the cite error? I suspect you can track it down easier than I can.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The bold red one? Thanks for the heads up, but ;-) If you see other errors, feel free to ping at the talk page, I'll get to it. Probably chopped a sentence that used the source. If anything else, be specific as there are almost 200 citations in the article. Montanabw^(talk) 20:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I stumbled on to this page Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting, because an article i had edited was on it. I was able to track down the issue, because I recognized it. I tried a couple on that page where I had no history, realized it was hopeless, so was about to leave when I saw California Chrome, knew you were an active editor, and hoped you could find the problem. So the only thing I knew was that it has an error. Yeah, I guess I could have mentioned it on the talk page, but I thought of you first.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well hey (hay?), I'm flattered. And glad you spotted it. I have the article up for PR right now, so all fixes welcomed. Montanabw^(talk) 21:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, thanks for your edits too. Actually, mine were about more than the one horse. I was interested in the race and didn't want to see this information left out of the appropriate articles. But it all looks so much better now.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the attribution of the author of File:Lazador insurgente Mexique.jpg in the "History" section of this article. The image presents an idealized view from 1828 of a ranchero in a heroic action. A link to the artist, a radical revolutionary, is entirely relevant. The history section is weak and should be expanded to cover the myths and history that form a large part of the appeal of modern charreada. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to expand the article, then. But the link to the artist makes no sense without such context. All I do is keep that article NPOV, which is a real challenge. Montanabw^(talk) 02:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea there would be POV-pushing on an article like this. To me a link to the artist or publication for a picture is always relevant, as is a link to a place, event or person. Readers are likely to say "where did that picture come from?", "where is that?", "what happened then?" or "who was that person?". We should not restrict links to topics that are narrowly related to the article. If readers stray far from their starting point, that is good. (I also like to give inline accreditation to any image, whether or not it is strictly required, on principle.) Aymatth2 (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

There are huge animal abuse concerns with charreada. And equally vehement supporters. I guess it's not a big deal either way is the artist is credited. I'm more apt to be irritable when people identify photographs in a way that goes off on a tangent unrelated to the article topic, particularly where it becomes all but free advertising. Montanabw^(talk) 04:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

O.k. - got it. The picture does show a sort of animal rights abuse, not allowed in modern competitions. The ranchero has lassoed a royalist officer in front of his troops, and will try to haul him away by the neck. The author died in 1832 and the book is long out of print, so it is not advertising. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Want to start a discussion on this topic about dog names. See here why Is there any standard way of doing it? I certainly think that moving

FYI, I made the move, but not after researching the options and concluding that this was the best option. It sounded uncontroversial and didn't seem to be about capitalization :) so I moved it to remove the parenthetical. I think it would be good to think through the right general way to do so, while nervously hoping it doesn't tern into another bird name capitalization type discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree on that one Sphilbrick. But Hafspanajen means well, so I hope this can be resolved in a friendly manner. Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Well, you see, there were a lot of different moves like this, and not you, but an other editor: Bolonese...dog, Armant dog... It was the same editor, and no consensus. And one more, Akbash dog Akita dog, Barbet dog, Billy dog???? this sounds plain silly - and no consensus . I certainly didn't see any discussion about re-naming, but there was a certain conflict here, on horse articles and cats too. Also there was no discussion on horses either, first came a mass move, reverted by

Dreadstar, responded like this, see talk page later, [3]. This will be a matter for Dog task forces, but I will not bring up your name, Sphilbrick, I promise. But this really has to be discussed. Hafspajen (talk

) 13:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Harrier (dog) Bakharwal dog ...OK; my head hurts. ‎ Guard dog ‎and Police dog is the only place that it should be Guard dog ‎and Police dog
  . Indeed.

Sigh. Also chicken, ducks, cattles pigs, and pigeons are mass- moved. Hafspajen (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hafspajen To be honest, I actually disagree with you on this one, but as it's an issue for Wikiproject dogs (or whatever) I'm also not touching those with a 10-foot pole. We have a unique situation in WikiProject Equine with a carefully crafted stable consensus, which is that the articles about Individually names animals get the disambiguator (horse), as in Secretariat (horse) or Eclipse (horse), but that breeds use Natural disambiguation and are titled Arabian horse, Andalusian horse, etc. (There is also a capitalization spat over some names, but I'm not discussing that issue here. So I tend to favor natural disambiguation in general and find the use of parentheses in titles to be "clunky" and awkward, best avoided where logically possible, but often not possible. Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, fine. But I still think none of the above changes are correct. The breed is called Akita, not Akita dog, Bolonese, not Bolonese dog, Akbash and not Akbash dog... those changes which besides lacking consensus are just inaccurate. Hafspajen (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's the problem: There are

WP:NATURAL Montanabw^(talk)

21:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen, take it to the project. In my opinion, you are dead wrong. You also fail to understand the rules of natural disambiguaton and are misinterpreting the guidelines. You mean well, but you do not understand the issue. The use of parenthetical disambiguation was popular several years ago, and articles are moving away from it. As I said previously elsewhere, where a name is the primary form (i.e. Appaloosa), no need to add a disambiguator. But where there IS no primary use, or another thing (like an ethnic group of people ) are the primary use, then adding a natural disambiguator is the next option (i.e. Friesian horse). Only where that doesn't work, such as individual names (i.e. Eclipse (horse) ) we use parenthetical disambiguation. Do you see the progression here? As for the rest, capitalization and such, that is a huge shitstorm going on across other areas of wiki and it is an unbelievably nasty fight that you and I both (if we prefer titles in title case, not sentence case) are in the minority and I for one am only going to dig in and fight for a few examples where capitalization is an unambiguous need, (i.e. American Quarter Horse) because I am not going to win at a meta level here so long as wikipedia software treats capital letters and lower case as separate characters. Montanabw^(talk) 23:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can't see how one can call an article

Akita dog or Dalmatian dog. That is not the dog breeds name. Hafspajen (talk

) 23:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that; I'm just explaining disambiguation policies. What DO you think people should do with Charolais, for example? Montanabw^(talk) 23:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• And what DO you think people should do with article
  Akita dog or Dalmatian dog names? Give me an idea that works. Hafspajen (talk
  ) 23:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No one is arguing that it is "the name" of the breed, though in many cases "dog" or "horse" actually IS appended to the breed name by individual registries. So my suggestion is leave them as is. I admit that "Billy dog" sounds a bit ridiculous but perhaps it's proof that there may be exceptions to any general rule. Take the question to the wikiproject. And then take a nice, deep breath and

step away from the horse carcass. ;-) Montanabw^(talk)

03:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Montana, but I prefer to have YOU as a role model. Like the way you fight your fights. Hafspajen (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Which fights? LOL! To the bitter end? Or until I throw up my hands and say, "f--- it"? Montanabw^(talk) 17:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Well, mylady, haven't you noticed that you are a dangerous enemy to have? Hafspajen (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Moi? (looks innocent). Montanabw^(talk) 18:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you. Hafspajen (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, if you could look at The Boat Race 1978, that'd be great. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do, stay tuned. Montanabw^(talk) 18:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I like. Tuned in. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, I need your help. The Black-Eyed Susan Stakes has changed their Logo for the 2013 and 2014 editions. But every time I place any logos or Artwork on wikipedia they are deleted. Apparently I am doing something wrong. Here is a url to see what it looks like. [4] Is there any way that you could help me place the Logo on the 2013 Black-Eyed Susan Stakes and 2014 Black-Eyed Susan Stakes pages in place of the old Logo. I appreciate your help as always if you can accomplish this.--Craiglduncan (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, usually there is a fair use rationale needed, somewhere. Follow my contribs once you see me make changes, if I screw it up, one of my talk page stalkers will no doubt help straighten things out. Montanabw^(talk) 21:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, @Craiglduncan: I think I found a couple problems. Compare what you did to what was done here: File:2014-preakness-logo.jpg for the 2014 Preakness Stakes. The first problem is that you are trying to use the 2011 logo for multiple events. I think you need to do each year's logo. Then, the second problem is when it is uploaded, add the " |image has rationale=yes" parameter in the relevant place. I did a clumsy kludge of the 2011 logo, which I hope will help salvage that one, though it could be done more elegantly if you imitate the Preakness examples. Note at Preakness Stakes itself, there is an image of the starting gate, not a logo. I think for the main article, this logo is the one you want. Also, on Flickr, MarylandGovPics is an absolute gold mine for images of Pimlico, (See Oxbow (horse) artice's images for link to Flickr account in question. The 2014 set had images from Black-Eyed Susan Day, I think ---) Montanabw^(talk) 21:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hello. I have created a normal structure for
  WP:SUBCAT: Dressage -> Category:Dressage -> Category:Equestrian sports -> Category:Equestrianism -> already in Category:Summer Olympic sports. Totally we must remove Dressage etc. from parent category Category:Olympic sports. I think we will create Category:Olympic disciplines in future and will put that articles into it. Please revert your edits. NickSt (talk
  ) 21:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No, @Nickst: because "equestrianism" is not about the three specific Olympic disciplines any more than is running. These articles need to be linked directly to the Olympics, and there is no rule that you cannot at times have non-diffusing categories. If you want to put them in Summer Olympic Sports or later create an Olympic disciplines category, that would be fine with me. But until then, there needs to be an olympic link in those three articles. Montanabw^(talk) 21:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• I understand you. Please say your opinion about future categorization of Olympic sports here: Category talk:Olympic sports. NickSt (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• By the way, there is no umbrella article about
  equestrian sport in generally? I found only list: List of equestrian sports. NickSt (talk
  ) 21:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Equestrianism IS the umbrella article. Montanabw^(talk) 22:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Why are you removing the WikiProject Mammal banner? I realize WikiProject Equine is a subproject of Mammals, but I really don't see the sense in having the Mammals project essentially covering only those mammals that aren't equines, felids, canids, primates, cetaceans or rodents. Especially when, aside from rodents, each of the subprojects covers only a few hundred species. There's nothing wrong with having subprojects for people who are particularly interested in a smaller group of mammals, but I don't see the advantage of excluding mammals covered by the subprojects from the parent project. Plantdrew (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Answered at your talk. We don't put in the whole tree. Montanabw^(talk) 23:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I found this snippet that briefly gives a glimpse into the Martin's lives. It turns out that Mrs. Martin knows a little something about horses.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/horseracing/27898147-419/chicagoan-california-chrome-co-owners-fine-in-background.html

I'm sorry about California Chrome as well. Racing luck does figure into it. I think he would have gotten the Crown but things to happen. He is a great athlete.

The Belmont was completely filled. We couldn't get out of the parking lot for several hours.

greensodagal (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh LOL! Asimov fans! Hari Seldon rocks! Great story! Thanks User:greensodagal. I have an acquaintance here in Montana who actually flew to NYC for the weekend to see the Belmont, she also said the place was a disaster to leave, I think she was trying to take public transportation, which was a nightmare as well. Poor planning by someone. Montanabw^(talk) 17:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The Foundation series is a must-read for Wikipedians. It's a story about another bunch of folks who were conned into believing that they were writing an encyclopedia. --Asimov Fan (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Heh, heh, heh and ha ha ha.... We ARE writing an encyclopedia... right...? Montanabw^(talk) 23:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That's what

Lewis Pirenne said. --Asimov Fan (talk

) 00:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I didn't respond sooner, but of course, let me know when Chrome hits FAC. It's a great and detailed article, shouldn't be a problem at FAC barring the standard snark. I'll be more than happy to help with technical table stuff if that crops up too, so don't be afraid to ping me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This is to notify you, as required by dispute resolution, that I have filed a request for dispute resolution regarding your communications with me.

Oh goody. More drama. Just what I wanted for Christmas. Montanabw^(talk) 01:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's presently at ANI: I believe Daniellagreen was confused about the proper venue. Her misunderstanding has been corrected. Acroterion (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Anywhere else?? Montanabw^(talk) 01:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Jeepers Montanabw. First me then you. There are currently several threads in the same vein at AN/I as well as some craziness on Gogo Dodo's talk page. I missed when the SOP became a) An IP or named user makes an edit b) It altered or removed by an experienced editor c) Then we take the time to explain things and provide links to the appropriate policies and guidelines which is followed by d) The IP/editor ignores our advice and goes on the attack by making unsupported and unprovable claims of bad faith, ownership, bullying etc. etc. Is there some website out there giving them a "how to" blueprint? Oh well, best regards in this and all else. MarnetteD|Talk 03:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There actually are a couple of essays/articles out there talking about how to do this, but you can learn the same thing by just sitting and watching the drama boards grind away. The place is actually pretty easy to "game" if you're into that sort of thing. Intothatdarkness 14:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I. M, I thought you should see this post about the "sock" situation with the IP in case you wind up dealing with it in the future. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

OMG! That makes perfect sense! That's gotta be right. BTW the email attack is a consistent MO for that one. Thanks MarnetteD! Montanabw^(talk) 20:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep your chin up Montana! You may be the first person to have not been brow-beaten into submission by this user who seems to write the equivalent of a Tolstoy novel when she doesn't get her way. I find the conspiracy undertones quite humorous too, like we're some sort of evil horsey consortium that also hates women (even though most of us are ladies :) Froggerlaura ^ribbit 02:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks everyone! The User who has issues with me on the Standardbred article is just one of the usual people who doesn't get it and they usually just either get a clue or stomp off in a huff after they've wasted enough bandwidth; that troll and sockpuppet, currently editing as an anon IP, who is after MarnetteD, OTOH, is the sort that approached RL scary, doesn't give up, and this is where some of our best admins really shine. Montanabw^(talk) 19:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for all you do....after all, horses are people too! MONGO 18:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, @Mongo:! You are one of the good eggs around here too! Montanabw^(talk) 19:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	* talk ) 16:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

hanks,

I did not vandalize any page. I correctly pointed out that there was no citations for what was posted as opposed to what had been there before. I do not appreciate your rudeness nor your accusations.--Stubborn Myth (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You'd been punked. That Snopes page on Mr. Ed being a zebra is a joke entry to illustrate that you shouldn't believe everything on the internet even if told by a site that is a supposed authority on the matter. They even joke about it on another page [8]. The paragraph does need correct citations however. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 04:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Trust me, it's a question of quality control with a dash of horse sense. Sheesh! Montanabw^(talk) 05:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

My subject says it all save - thanks for the pony. Stellabystarlight (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Given that I was just called a troll yesterday, your kind words are very much appreciated! Montanabw^(talk) 02:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for being part of this:

30 June 2012:

Precious appeared

and continued precious support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

BW, there's a bit of method to this madness. The MSU Library is going all out to improve the use (and editing of) wikipedia by MSU students, faculty and staff. The library dean is a great supporter of Wikipedia. They will be hosting a grant funded Wikipedia for historians workshop (Richard Jensen is running it and I'll be assisting) on July 19th. In October, the MSU Library is sponsoring a Wiki Editathon in collaboration with Colorado State University on the subject of Water in the West. I'll be assisting in that. MY fellow Campus Ambassador and I thought the userbox would be a good way to identify all the participants in these projects over time Especially those who are not really MSU alumni. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is fantastic. @Mike Cline: I'd actually like to pop down, what time and where? My little comment was meant with humor and in a spirit of fun. By the way, do you want to continue the review on your Brook Trout GA? Montanabw^(talk) 22:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw,

Thanks for the input on the MSU Library Project Userbox. I'm always surprised by all the wide and varied views of Wikipedians, and the idea of "outing" just never occurred to me, but I'm glad you brought it up.

I don't think this particular userbox would fall into that area because it's a voluntary effort to alert other Wikipedians of the user's interests in the US and Canada Higher Education Project as well as the GLAM Project as they pertain specifically to Montana State University and it's library.

As a campus ambassador, I view userboxes as a gracious way for users, especially newbie Wikipedians, to informally introduce themselves and their interests on their talk pages. At first I thought the userbox should be just about MSU, but then I remembered the GLAM Project and our U.S. Archivist David Ferriero's talk at Wikimania back in 2012 about GLAM and the role Wikipedia is playing in helping facilitate open access to the U.S. Archives.

MSU Library and those Wikipedians who support the MSU library, the US & Canada Higher Education Program, and/or GLAM, regardless of whether they graduated from or are students at MSU, should have a userbox to put on their talk page to introduce their interest in those areas.

Having said that, maybe we need a Montana GLAM userbox for all Wikipedians keenly interested in Montana and all it's galleries, libraries, archives and museums.

Some collections in public institutions' archives actually have copyright restrictions that were put on them at the time they were donated to that institution. The Schlechten collection at MOR may fall under that category.

As for the "photos from the infamous 1933 annual" I'm not sure what you are referring to. 1933 was 81 years ago and I think copyright is only good for 75 years unless renewed. Also if the 1933 annual was published by a government institution then it may already belong to the public-domain because it was paid for by public taxes. I admit this is a slippery slope into public-domain ownership but I doubt this issue will go away now that the US Archives uploaded 100,000 images to the Commons and publicly funded museums, libraries and archives have collections with materials that the public wants to use in digital, free-access format. McMormor (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the Schlechten article? I suppose they don't keep the display about it in the basement of Montana Hall any more, but the "infamous" 1933 annual yearbook was this one and I believe copies are kept in the Renne Library: [9],[10] and a fun story here. My dad worked for Chris Schlechten back in the fifties. Montanabw^(talk) 20:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You have to be careful with annuals/yearbooks, as they're often funded by subscription or sources other than tax dollars. Although it may appear to have been published by a public institution (the school), that may not actually be the case. Intothatdarkness 16:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Would you care to review

"my current and future approach to conflict is and will be moderated by my understanding of the value of reasoned discussion where possible, and formal dispute-resolution processes where necessary" (not written by me) Montanabw^(talk) 16:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There is not a replacement yet to the watchlists as far as I know. When they are all up and running I will make a template for them to add back to all the projects.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs)

OK, good to know that you'll be doing the repalcements, then? Montanabw^(talk) 21:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep...I hope all is fine soon- all is just being tested will be online then off line - waiting for its permanent home URL's . Will make some template titled Template:WPTools for the project pages that will add back the reflinks, dab, watchlist etc.. with a "Main" link to the lads main page. I was under the impression it would be sometime...but things are moving faster then most believed. Need theses tools back ASAP as I know of many editors that only edit in that fashion. -- Moxy (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I"m lost without reflinks, personally. I never really believed it could be really gone, I figured all the side chatter was just the usual blather.... sound and fury, signifying nothing. Foolish me. (Oh god, does that mean they still are going to try and impose visual editor on all of us again? OH NOOOOO!) Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

OMG no Visual editor pls LOL. I have mentioned this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#Help making a template.-- Moxy (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful interventions on the subject of "as of". Now, a real nitpick from me about formatting fractions. I noticed this in your excellent horse article as well. Rather than typing "1 -1/2 days' worth", type in "{{fraction|1|1|2}} days' worth", which displays as "1+1⁄2 days' worth". Isn't it cool? --John (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I do know about the fraction template, I'm just lazy 'cause that takes more keystrokes ... LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 00:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Moved to article talk. Montanabw^(talk) 23:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Moved to article talk. Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A Traveller of a different color

Although unrelated to the subject of this thread the title reminded me that I read Richard Adams book Traveller many years ago. Seeing the Civil war through the eyes of R.E. Lee's horse was a fascinating idea. It is long out of print but it might be available at a library or online if it piques your interest. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually own a paperback copy! LOL! And you are right, it was a fun book to read. Montanabw^(talk) 04:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That is great! I should have guessed that you would. I have the paperback as well though it is a a box in storage and it would take some digging to find it. Last time I read it was the original showing of Ken Burns Civil War documentary. Enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 04:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Heh, not sure where my copy is, either. May have loaned it to someone. Montanabw^(talk) 04:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to be a major pain in the _____, but I think this edit is a little ... not nicely worded in the "California Chrome is curious about everything around him". When I read that, I picture Curious George, which I don't think is the intention. I don't have a phrasing that's necessarily better, but just wanted to let you know how I read it. Maybe something like "California Chrome is interested in the world around him" or CC "embodies curiosity in his daily life" or something along those lines. I don't know; just spouting some suggestions. Your call. All the best, Go Phightins! 03:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to park the comment at article talk, maybe someone else can come up with a solution. And who knows? If the horse had an opposible thumb, well, George WAS curious...  ;) Montanabw^(talk) 03:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your edits to my translation of Aubergne horse. I was really hoping that someone who knew about horses would review the article as I was struggling a lot with the terminology since I know nothing about horses. It appeared next on my list of geography articles requiring translation although I dont see how its a geography article. I still do not understand the reference to hocks being clos in French which I translated as closed but you say this is wrong. Also there were a few words that defied translation which I left in the article: noyé (about withers), cordés, avalėe, and en pupitre. Do you have any clue what they mean in English in relation to the horse? There are also a couple of places where I used the word "kidneys" but later realised its supposed to be "loins". There is also reference to the horse being of "postier" type - does it mean the "Breton Postier" or something else? I hesitated to put in the word Breton in case it was wrong. Of course I had no clue what mediolinear meant but assumed that it meant something.

Thanks also for reformatting the article which I think is a great improvement. If you had time to review and correct the contents it would be much appreciated. Samrong01 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, and I appreciate the work you did! On wikipedia, @Dana boomer: has worked on several of the French horse breed articles and may be able to offer advice, though she is pretty busy IRL right now. @Tsaag Valren: is French and has helped us port over some other horse articles. I personally do not speak French, so I am of little help. I suppose I could run complete sentences through Google translate and see if something useful could be gleaned from context... Montanabw^(talk) 02:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Nez de renard (fox nose) is a french espression fo a mealy nose, so it's the pangaré. Postier mean a horse for the "service des postes", in english, equivalent is the Mail coach. The postier Breton is the main horse breed used for this in France (with the mareyeur Boulonnais). So, it mean a carriage trotting horse semi-heavy. Noyé about the withers it mean there's a lot of muscles around the withers, so it look desappearing. In the fr-wiki we have a problem of copyvio with this article : the french association of Auvergne horse copied the fr. wiki article without mention of the licence (2013). We sent a mail and it as been cleaned, but some internet content in "cache" can remains. And the fr-article need an update. It has been written before the official recognizion (?) of the breed. Now there are new official sources. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this person needs a welcome to or from WikiProject equines or something similar, to fill out their currently non-existent talk page? My welcome toolbox only seems to have cookies.

Hey (hay?) thanks for the heads up, I'll trot on over and see what's happening. Montanabw^(talk) 19:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Nominated Chrome for FAC today, FYI: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California Chrome/archive1. Grab your popcorn and watch the show. Montanabw^(talk) 22:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I will definitely take a pass relatively soon. Can you please take a look at blue nuthatch which I think will be my next FAC candidate? See if anything pops out at you as needing fixing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Will do! Heh, saw the headline and for a moment thought it read "raise THE bird" aka "flip the bird" aka the infamous USA middle finger salute! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 01:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much. It needs a fair bit of work, especially the lead, but now I have some specifics to address.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Usually another set of eyes is a good inspiration. Hope I helped! Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)