Talk:Glossary of equestrian terms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Directions[edit]

Updated Format (2022)[edit]

See: 2022 Formatting

Original Format (2009)[edit]

Formatting for this glossary: ;term 1 :This is the definition of term 1. ;term 2 :<p>1. This is part of the first definition of term 2.</p> <p>This is more of the first definition of term 2.</p> :2. This is the second definition of term 2.

Will render:

term 1
This is the definition of term 1.
term 2

1. This is part of the first definition of term 2.

This is more of the first definition of term 2.

2. This is the second definition of term 2.

Open question[edit]

Do we want many definitions here for horse breeds? I am the guilty party who started it by defining "Thoroughbred," mostly due to the confusion with "purebred," so smack me with a trout, but nonetheless, I realize it's a question to discuss! We already have about 350 entries on list of horse breeds, so don't want them all to go over here too... could we come up with a consensus as to what horse breeds, if any, need to be here and what can just stay on the horse breeds list? One thought would be only those breeds ranked "high" in importance by WPEQ. Another would be to have none at all, including the TB. Another idea would be only those terms that are confused with something else...like TB... Thoughts?? Montanabw(talk) 18:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think I did Arabian before you did? A glossary should cover common terms, it's not a dictionary, which is more comprehensive, but a guide for the interested but unaware to refer to as needed. In my view 350 breed entries would be too many but the top 10 breeds seem reasonable to me. Certainly Quarter Horse, Arabian and Thoroughbred are all reasonable for inclusion. Also, a methodology for glossary construction I've seen used before is to let the entries flow until they stop, then start cutting back. Cutting back too early may harm the construction process. ++Lar: t/c 10:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, don't scratch it until it itches??? Montanabw(talk) 17:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, in other words, we're in Brainstorm mode, don't toss stuff out yet, winnow it out all at once later. (although thrashing out general guidelines isn't wrong, per se)++Lar: t/c 18:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open question two[edit]

Same as above, only for horse coat colors, for which we have a good dozen articles, at least. "Chestnut" is in there because of the two definitions. Do we want to keep adding more colors or just ref the equine coat color article? (For that matter, ditto tack terms, etc...) Oh, we have so many weird words! Montanabw(talk) 18:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for the major colors/breeds, I see no reason to not list them here too. Minor breeds, colors, tack bits should be on their respective lists, but the major ones (saddle, bridle, halter, etc) should be here too as a way of pointing folks to the respective lists. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we (or, more likely, someone else not amongst the usual suspects) don't get into a spat over what's "major," I guess we just shall proceed until apprehended. The main thing is to be careful about a too - US-centric view. For example, on a worldwide scale, IS the Quarter Horse a "major" breed, or is it only a "major" breed in the USA? (Hey CG, care to give us your thoughts??) Montanabw(talk) 17:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest Thoroughbred, Arabian, Warmblood, draft horse, and maybe Quarter. Colors - the basics - bay, chestnut, gray, black, brown, paint/pinto, skewbald/piebald. Major gaits - walk, trot, canter/lope, gallop, amble, pace. Basic tack - headstall, halter, bridle, bit, rein, basic saddle types (including Australian), stirrup, harness. Dressage, racing, showing, gymkhana, rodeo, jumping. Age categories, basic body parts - back, barrel, neck, poll, withers, hoof, fetlock, hock, knee, frog, pastern, croup, muzzle. Trailer/box. Stall. Paddock. Conformation. Fault. Basic racing terms - starts, wins, shows, places, claiming race, allowance race, stakes race, graded stakes race. Champion. Reserve Champion. Breed, breed registry, color breed, open stud book, closed stud book, stud book, pedigree, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, tail male, tail female, female family. Herd, bachelor herd, wild/feral. Pony Club. More as I think of them. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest hunter/jumper and mustang? ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I figure all suggestions are welcome. Hm... starting gate, colic, founder, laminitis, cinch, girth, cantle, saddle pad, leads (canters), diagonals, markings, sock, stocking, star, blaze, stripe, snip, green-broke, fetlock, snaffle, curb, hackamore, sitting trot, rising trot, collection, extension, azorturia, shoes, navicular, bowed tendon, bone spavin, sidepass, haunches in, renvers. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god, not diseases too! =:-O Well, OK, whatever we each feel is our bliss to add. You guys are right (and, most of all, as long as I don't have to do all of it! LOL!) Looks like we have all the gaits, that's about done. And I do favor at least the "weird" names for body parts (croup, anyone??) I have to admit that some racing terms probably need to be added and yes, the breeding words too -- no list or glossary on those, though many wiki articles... But colors, oh dear, I think I may just put the template at the bottom of the article...you left out palomino, buckskin, dun, LOL and we don't want to recopy the whole equine coat colors article...or do we??? Montanabw(talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just figured the "main" body colors you see around the world, not the more localized ones. Palomino isn't really a color seen in Europe, for example. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, I figured you knew by telepathy that I'd picked up two equine dictionaries last week, thus you started this article...Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! And Palomino in Europe? Au contraire! See Isabelline and the sire of my new half-Arab. Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Q horses - In OZ they are third in numbers after ASH and Tbs. Elsewhere they are few in numbers aside from the US. This article is badly needed, but it could be very large?Cgoodwin (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figure we'll start culling when needed, and we'd probably be better off culling the breeds first. I'd like to have a way to link some of the "odd" terminology .. such as brothers-in-blood.. so that it's not required to explain them in every article. But let's just keep adding until we run out of steam.. then we can cull out. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I guess I am OK with Lar and E's concept of build, then cull, but maybe best to just start with fewer breeds. I only put in TBs because of the confusion with "purebred." I personally see an argument for some of the types (i.e. "Warmbloods" aren't a breed, and there's confusion), but even there, we DO have the other lists to send folks. Whatever the consensus is. I do fear endless laundry lists of things described elsewhere. Montanabw(talk) 03:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and, for linking, I think you could link to the anchor letter in the glossary, i.e. [[Glossary of equestrian terms#B|Brothers in blood]] = Brothers in blood. If that's "legal" in the MOS... Montanabw(talk) 04:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree only include major breeds like TB and Arab. However, also include groups of breeds and more general types – mountain and moorland, Iberian horses, warmbloods, draught horses, carriage horses, pit ponies; probably many more I can't think of now. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horse harness[edit]

There is a glossary for horse harness parts in Horse harness. We could incorporate that into this list, but my feeling is that most terms should be kept only on that list. Some items could usefully be included here as well, as they contribute to more general understanding or are variations of other usage – for example, it makes sense to mention harness saddles here together with riding saddles, and breeching is used for several purposes, not just for harness. More specialist terms such as belly-band and hames are perhaps better left there. Richard New Forest (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a concern with tack in general (all the types of bits and bit parts and/or saddle parts would be another nightmare to glossarize here). I like the concept of describing the major things and wikilinking to the relevant articles for the rest. Maybe add horse collar to the harness parts because it's not like a dog collar. The basics, ya know...Montanabw(talk) 19:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should try to stick to just the basics. Feel free to revert anything I add that you feel should not be on the list. Thanks. - Josette (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting inquiry[edit]

Hm.. Just noticed an issue for discussion. The use (advocated in the MOS for glossaries) of the semicolon to bold the entire line is, arguably, a bit awkward-looking when we have had to differentiate UK and US English. But adding the three apostrophes to make some lines bold or not bold seems to be discouraged by the MOS. I changed some back, but I realize that we do have a formatting question here. Any thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 19:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

At present we have different dialect usages mostly labelled as "US", "UK". I suspect that Canadian and Irish people might have opinions about this... WP is supposed to be for everyone – could we perhaps replace "US" and "UK" with less political terms? "NAm" would do for the first; not sure about the second. "British Isles" is widely understood, so perhaps "BI"? Richard New Forest (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wiki MOS has some rules about this. I mean, there are east coast and west coast spats in the US over stuff too (the fight over the pronunciation of "chaps" is a thing of legend). I know Cgoodwin will keep us in line with Australian lingo, I have no clue what the Irish position would be (Is User Culnacreann still around? That is an Irish horse person). I can speak for some Canadians ('cause my home state borders three Canadian provinces and thus I'm an expert! LOL!) That they just throw up their hands in despair at us Yankees and let us say whatever we want but then they insist on UK spelling! LOL! Maybe we can link to the WP guidelines on this matter or something. I'm all for fair, but laundry lists can become a bit much. What does everyone else think??? Montanabw(talk) 23:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm missing what's wrong with US and UK? If something is a) important enough globally to be in this global glossary, and b) regional enough that US/UK/Aus/Can etc. isn't fine grained enough, why not just deal with it as it comes? As for BI instead of UK? I don't think globally that BI is nearly as well understood as UK. ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If "US" meant a dialect form used in the US but not elsewhere, and "UK" likewise only in the UK, that would be fine. However, I think "US" is being used here as a proxy for "NA", and all the "UK" items are also Irish. Cultural colonialism or what...? However, I think you're right about "BI" not being widely recognised – what about "UK/Ir"? Richard New Forest (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I make no claims on Canadian usage, they may or may not be the same as the US. They do have their own terms, and I've never lived close enough to the border when I had horses in order to learn what terms they use that are different from the US. When I've said "US" as a term, that's all I'm covering, US usage, not Mexican, not Canadian. Not sure about others, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is basically based on the wikipedia conventions on "US" and "UK" spelling. Which I recognize as falling a bit short when we are talking regional distinctions. I do think that if we come up with some word used only in one English-speaking place (say, South Africa or Ireland) and not elsewhere, that's one thing, and we do note "Australasia" for the stuff where apparently Australian use differs from British English. If someone can find the relevant article in the Wiki MOS, I suspect this issue has been raised before. Or maybe Wiktionary can offer some guidelines. I would agree that "US" means "US" as indeed, Spanish is spoken in Mexico and though the western Canadian spoken dialect I hear the most is pretty close to that of the western US, (eh?), they use UK spelling for everything up there, so it's a mishmash. What little horse showing I've done there has struck me as having some more British-esque traditions than here, but I've not shown in the eastern USA at all, so maybe the traditions back east are similar there to those in Canada. There is also probably some distinctions between Eastern and Western Canada, and then, of course, there is Quebec. As it is, I am comfortable with US/UK unless there is some word that is unique to neither region. I fear anything more is opening a can of worms Montanabw(talk) 20:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the spelling, so much as the use of terms... I can't think of any way in which the usage of terms in Britain and Ireland differs, and I think effectively the British Isles horsey culture spans both islands fairly uniformly. I can't judge whether US and Canadian usage differ much from each other – nor indeed how much usage varies within either. I have therefore changed "UK" to "UK/Ir" throughout (where appropriate), and I'll leave it to others to decide whether to stick with "US" or change to "NA" or something similar. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the spelling in some cases. Here's the thing: Two problems with "NA": First, "NA" includes Mexico (as has been beaten into my head by other wikipedians on a number of occasions) and folks who care about hispanic culture REALLY get ticked when people say "NA" but mean just the US and Canada. Plus, Canadians use UK spelling, though sometimes more US terminology than British, but it varies. Similarly, we have Australia and New Zealand, who have some unique terms, but usually use both British terminology and spelling for standard stuff (Cg, is it a "head collar" or a "halter" in Oz?). So, I don't know the answer. Can we say "UK" when the term is common to all nations (maybe with the exception of Canada) using British English and "UK/Ir/Au/NZ" or whatever when there are differences within nations that use British English? Maybe "US" for anything in North America except when the Canadians use a different term or spelling, when we say "Can" ("Ca" here usually means "California," which some folks want to claim is its own nation, but...LOL) I don't know. Maybe "BI" for UK/Ir when different from Australia and NZ? I don't know the answer, but we do need some consistency. HELP!!!!!
Halters used to be the rope or rolled leather style where the lead formed part of the usable structure. However the term is coming to be also used now for headcollars, too. On the country issue I would hope that the common abbreviations are used such as UK (BI is not immediately recognisable), CAN instead of Ca and US in preference to NA etc.Cgoodwin (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But in Mexico they don't speak English much, do they...? "NA" in this context would mean English as she is spoke in whatever parts of North America do use English, so would automatically omit anyone who speaks Spanish, French, Inuit or whatever else. Don't English-speaking Mexicans usually speak US-style English anyway?
I still think that spelling (and indeed pronunciation) is a minor element in a glossary page, which is primarily about the different usage of terms. The different use of "halter" has nothing to do with the spelling or pronunciation. Where (as with "lungeing" and "longeing") there are spelling differences they are fairly obvious and need minimal explanation, and less specialist spelling differences ("plough", "plow"; "colour", "color") don't really even need noting at all.
Using "UK" to include Ireland will last only as long as it takes anyone Irish to visit this page! (It offends me and I'm hardly Irish at all...) In fact what I've put ("UK/Ir") is not really right either, as the UK includes part of Ireland (or, as you may prefer, Ireland includes part of the UK). However, I used that combination because I agree that "BI" is not easily recognisable. Would it perhaps be a better alternative to say "BrE" and "AmE"), as is quite well established in dialect articles? This makes it clearer that we are talking about the dialects rather than the locations as such. Richard New Forest (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People in Mexico get JUST as offended by the use of NA to really mean US and Canada as the Irish would by using UK to include Ireland. Trust me. We're better off with "US/CAN" than the firestorm that might errupt. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that ("UK/IRL") and "US/CAN" are best as these universally accepted and recognised abbreviations. See [1]. Cgoodwin (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, as far as terms, there are plenty of non horse examples, bonnet/hood, boot/trunk, lorry/freighter and so on. What IS the wiki policy this week on all this? I don't care what we use as long as we all decide together. I've seen "UK" "BI" "BE" and probably more... Cg, will "UK" be OK for those terms identical in the UK and Australia? We also have a question for uniquely Australia/New Zealand terms (Barcoo, mob, etc...), do we use "Au" or "Au/NZ") or something else? I presume the NZ folks feel like the Irish if one just says "Australia" -- or are you guys less fussy than we northern hemisphere sorts? Will it work to just say "UK English" and "US English" unless there are more specific regional terms? (CAN/IRL/Au/NZ, etc...?) I don't want us to get into a mess where we say "Head collar" (UK/IRL/some Aus/NZ) "Halter" (US/Can/some Au) and then of course, we aren't even starting on South Africa or India... :-P Montanabw(talk) 03:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brumby, clumper and Barcoo are (I think unique to AUS). Mobs also run in NZ as FIK. It would be helpful to have more Kiwi input, though. I would hope that "UK English" and "US English" should cover most listings. India did have many early "UK English", words, too.Cgoodwin (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Girl donkeys[edit]

Gang, I tagged the use of "jennet" as an alternative to "jenny" for just a bit. Here's why: Richard and I had a long discussion a while back (like a year or two ago) about whether the term "Jennet" is used in the UK to describe a female donkey. If memory serves, Richard, didn't you say you'd never heard it used, at least not in your neck of the woods, nor could you find a UK source? I WILL note that since that time, I did see one source from Alberta, Canada say "jennet" for a female donkey. Could it be archaic in the UK (and Canada just behind the curve?) My asking is because of the Jennet article, which focuses on the classic medieval gaited horse that developed in Spain but became simply the "generic" Jennet as it came into widespread use throughout Europe. Montanabw(talk) 06:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Check out List of motorsport terminology (for another day , why is that a list and this is a glossary, they're formatted similarly, aren't they?) ... I think that page uses images effectively. What do folk think of using a few carefully selected images here? (No I don't mean that cartoon horse, which I hope is there as a temporary measure for the silliness value.) ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh LOL! Of course the cartoon is there for the silliness factor! (sniff, sniff, sob, my pretty cartoon...waaah! Just kidding!) I think that there may be a place for a very few selected images, but I'd like to get the input of everyone else. We probably want a criterion of some sort or else the thing turns into a gallery. I don't know if we'd want to prioritize images based on quality or based on how difficult the term is to explain in words... very good food for thought. Folks? Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 02:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I ask is that if you add a picture, you add WP:ALT along with it. Having just played "rescue ranger" on Second Crusade tonight, it's bad enough if I have to do the citing on this, but I refuse to do alt texts on images. Refuse! And what happens if your resident "citer" goes on strike??? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point heard and accepted. Alt text is a good thing. Montanabw(talk) 04:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding terminology[edit]

I posted this query at Talk:Horse breeding and it was suggested that I also ask here.

I have observed a number of breeding terms in individual Thoroughbred articles which I think are not adequately explained, or are not wiki-linked. I wonder if this article could have a section which explain some of these breeding terms. Examples are as follows: Heroic - inbred twice and (4x3); Highflyer - inbred 2x3; Pommern - inbred twice in the third generation; Barcaldine - incestuously bred (2x3); Glencoe II - extinct colonial family, C33. I am sure it would assist many lay readers of Thoroughbred articles if links to some of these terms could be established. Thanks. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get around to them sooner or later. Busy week at "real work" this week though. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The SECRET glossary[edit]

Couldn't resist posting the REAL equestrian glossary. The person who sent this to me knows who she is, and thanks! Montanabw(talk) 18:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

;) - Josette (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Horse's View of the World

Do you ever wonder what your horse is actually thinking? How often have you ever wondered if you are on the same page or even talking the same language? Take a look at some of the definitions from the horse’s dictionary and compare them to yours.

  • Arena: Place where humans can take the fun out of forward motion.
  • Bit: Means by which a rider's every motion is transmitted to the sensitive tissues of the mouth.
  • Bucking: counter-irritant.
  • Crossties: Gymnastic apparatus.
  • Dressage: Process by which some riders can eventually be taught to respect the bit.
  • Fence: Barrier that protects good grazing.
  • Grain: Sole virtue of domestication.
  • Hitching rail: Means by which to test one's strength.
  • Horse trailer: Mobile cave bear den.
  • Hotwalker: The lesser of two evils.
  • Jump: An opportunity for self-expression.
  • Latch: Type of puzzle.
  • Longeing: Procedure for keeping a prospective rider at bay.
  • Owner: Human assigned responsibility for one's feeding.
  • Rider: Owner overstepping its bounds.
  • Farrier: Disposable surrogate owner; useful for acting out aggression without compromising food supply.
  • Trainer: Owner with mob connections.
  • Veterinarian: Flightless albino vulture

Only Horse People…

  • believe in an 11th commandment: inside leg to outside rein...
  • know that all topical medications come in either indelible blue or neon yellow.
  • think nothing of eating a sandwich while mucking out a stall.
  • know why a thermometer has a yard of yarn attached to the end of it.
  • are banned from Laundromats.
  • fail to associate whips, chains and leather with sexual deviancy.
  • can magically lower their voices five octaves to bellow at a pawing horse.
  • will end relationships over their hobby.
  • cluck to their cars to help them up hills.
  • insure their horses for more than their cars.
  • know (and care) more about their horse’s nutrition than their own.
  • have no problem speaking of semen, abscesses and colic surgery at the dinner table.
  • have a smaller wardrobe than their horse..
  • engage in a hobby that is more work than their day job.
  • know that a good ride is better than Zoloft any day.

I love this! So true, lol! (ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Oops! My bad! That wretched pouncing instinct![edit]

Sorry about the darned carelessness stuff'n'all that! It's the darned paws, you know! They will keep splatting on things like some kind of Pavlovian response :o(. My bad [displays politely-folded ears in appeasement]. I have a feeling that ability is going to be three lengths behind enthusiasm for a while. Possibly permanently. But I will keep trying to learn, I promise! (ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

A good rule or two: 1) When in doubt, put it on the talk page with a "is this OK?" and if no one whines in 24 hours, then do it. (Someone might be offline for 24 hours and still revert you, but at least you'll get politeness points) 2) If you see a footnote and want to edit anyway, put your stuff AFTER the footnote (or check the source if you can find it and make sure what you add is in line with what's already there. My own view is that you get to the point pretty quick where you can tell which articles are "policed" and which are not. If they have good format, sourced footnotes, etc., pretty good chance they've got a babysitter. If there are lots of tags for article improvement and no footnotes at all, then you probably can't make things any worse by adding stuff. (LOL!) Montanabw(talk) 23:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename discussion[edit]

Hey all, someone who has never edited this list moved it to "Glossary of equestrianism" and I just moved it back to its original name. I don't see this as a huge moral issue, but to me "equestrianism" implies riding, whereas here we have horse words in general. JMO, but per WP:BRD, I'm opening a discussion here on the issue should the mover wish to explain the need for the article name change (and if he is willing to fix over 250 (but fewer than 500) incoming links if we do. Discuss? Montanabw(talk) 22:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sibling glossary[edit]

Just discovered that there are two horse racing glossaries, Glossary of Australian and New Zealand punting and North American Thoroughbred horse racing terminology. I recommended they be combined into Glossary of horse racing terms. Anyone with thoughts, feel free to trot over to the talk page of either article and offer an opinion. (I definitely don't want to merge them here -- so many gambling words and terms not used except in horse racing...) Montanabw(talk) 23:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some copyediting dispute[edit]

User:Montanabw and I have been talking back and forth about the recent series of edits he and I have been making to the article. For the most part, it's a simple issue of copyediting. I have made the case on his talk page (in a now-deleted thread) that terms don't normally "describe" things, but instead "refer" to them (editors are welcome to follow the conversation present in that diff if they so choose). Montanabw claims that there is important nuance lost in my changes, but has not elaborated on what this nuance is other than to say that "refers to" (or its synonyms) indicates only one meaning while "describes" does not, which is not the sense that I get from either of those.

I have asked Montanabw to elaborate on this partial rv of my most recent edit. I seek a justification of the reversions; on the face of it, it does not seem like important nuance has been lost. Montanabw has asked that we move the discussion here, where we can discuss the edits in a more prominent place to garner more voices than just his and mine. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 02:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical terms[edit]

I see no entries for e.g. charger, destrier, palfrey, courser, rouncey, jousting, cavalry, cataphract, lancer, dragoon. Was there a deliberate decision to exclude such historical & martial terms? And BTW I notice cantle and pommel are both mentioned but not defined.—Odysseus1479 04:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fine line between a glossary and becoming wiktionary, and I'd say it wasn't deliberate to omit the military stuff, but if we discussed it now, we'd probably agree that these things would be better placed elsewhere, just like most racing terms are in one of the horse racing glossaries. Generally, we emphasize terms that are found in modern horsey parlance and particularly those that don't have wikipedia articles about them or definitions elsewhere. (e.g. parts of the horse Things like cantle and pommel are defined in the articles about saddles and such, though if someone wanted to add some equipment parts here, with proper sourcing, I don't think that would be a problem. The biggest limiting factor was the editorial decision to source every single thing as it was added, so as not to have to go in and dump a bunch of stuff later. Montanabw(talk) 05:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Names of equestrian-related people/occupations?[edit]

I came to this page looking for the name of a person who is an expert in evaluating the quality of a horse, somebody with the breadth of knowledge to be able to examine the horse physically (like a veterinarian would), but also evaluate its value for racing, etc. I see that many of the entries refer to people involved with horses, but their names are not included as entries with their own definitions. For example, the term "handler" is used but not defined. ("Jockey" is, however.) Should those terms be included here, or is there another page that covers this?Musanim (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Glossary of equestrian terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

blue hen[edit]

I added the definition of "blue hen" here and linked several articles to it. The definition is also in Glossary of North American horse racing. Would this be a better link target? Should it be both places? Peter Flass (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Formatting Conversion[edit]

This article is over a decade old, and the recommended glossary formatting has changed in that time. See: MOS:GLOSS

The updated formatting is as follows: 

==A–M==
Optional introductory text.

{{glossary}}
{{term |1=term A}}
{{defn |1=Definition of term A}}
{{term |1=term B}}
{{defn |no=1 |1=First definition of term B.}}
{{defn |no=2 |1=Second definition of term B.}}
{{glossary end}}
A–M

Optional introductory text.

term A
Definition of term A
term B
1.  First definition of term B.
2.  Second definition of term B.

Full documentation available here.

Justification[edit]

Glossaries using this style:

Conversion Process[edit]

Individual sections can be converted one at a time, leaving the old formatting for sections not being edited.

Please convert any section you are editing to the updated format. Alternatively, make edits that preserve the format of the section you are editing.

Socksage (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update citation style[edit]

Is there any objection to updating the citation style, either to {{Sfn}} short form (ex. {{Sfn|Belknap|p=114}}), or better yet Citation Style 1 with a page number (ex. {{r|Belknap|p=114}})?

The current style is practically useless for a reader; in order to find the reference, you click the citation number, it bumps down to a text only short form citation, which you then have to manually search for on the page, before reaching the actual citation. Belknap is referenced over 90 times on the page; searching for "Belknap" doesn't shorten your search unless you already know to scroll to the bottom of the page. There is also no reason we need an entry in the References section 90+ times when each glossary entry referencing Belknap could simply use the superscript numbering of CS1 style, like this: [72]:114

Multiply this problem (for the reader) by around 300 individual citations referencing only about a dozen books, and you've got yourself a mess. I would bet using CS1 style would shorten the reference section to around 40 entries, be easier for the reader, be easier for editor maintenance, and definitely make verification tasks much easier.

I've updated these citation styles in the past. Usually no one cares, but occasionally some people have objected, so I'm posting here. Speak now or forever hold your peace.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no objections lodged. I will start updating the old citation style to CS1.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. This project is now done. On to converting the format for a proper glossary.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glossary_of_equestrian_terms&oldid=1221146239"