Talk:Draft Trotter

Merge[edit]

This article should be remerged with Dole Gudbrandsdal. The single ref does not support the information being given - it says that there are 5200 coldblood trotters in Norway, not that they are all Draft Trotters - they could be of any breed. No sources that I have seen claim that the Dole Trotter is a separate breed from the Dole Gudbrandsdal - it is a type of the breed, with a few more additions, not a whole separate breed. This article has no references to back up its assertions that this is a separate breed. Most of the relevant information in this article is already contained in the Dole Gudbrandsdal article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I think. Ermm, shouldn't you quote some kind of reference when making a proposal of this kind? What sources say that the two are the same, and are they reliable? I know less than nothing about horses in Scandinavia. But the FAO lists four horses in Norway, the Dølehest, the Fjordhest, the Nordlandshest and the Norsk Kallblodstraver, which I think would in English be something like Norwegian Cold-blood Trotter. Is that the horse this article is about? The Nordic Genetic Resource Center says that the herd book for the Kallblodstraver was established in 1939, that the Norwegian and Swedish breeds are one, and that the DNT is responsible for registration; the page for the Dølehest on the same site is here. The registration rules are here. I believe Pitke is an expert on Scandinavian trotting horses, and might perhaps be able to advise.

Just out of curiosity, has the author of this article offended in some way that is not clear here? The tone of the merge proposal seems an unduly harsh form of thanks for what has clearly been a lot of work.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Pitke to chime in here. Please AGF about my merge proposal; even after reading it again, I see nothing "unduly harsh" - it simply points to an article that already discusses the subject in almost as much detail as this one, asks for additional sources, and provides greater information on the merge tag I placed on the main article page. For sources, please see those in the Dole Gudbrandsdal article, all of which state that there are two forms of the Dole - a heavier draft and a lighter trotter. I think part of the issue may be that there seems to be a generic Swedish/Norwegian coldblooded trotting horse that descends from various Swedish and Norwegian heavy draft breeds crossed with lighter breeds - a fact that is not made clear currently in this article. Depending on Pitke's response, it may be that we need to rename this article (which needs to be done anyway, as "draft trotter" is extremely ambiguous) to something like "Scandanavian Trotter" or "Coldblooded Trotter (Scandanavian)". It doesn't help that the article author provides no sources backing up their POV, and instead uses unreliable refs and refs that don't back up what they are supposedly sourcing. More in the morning; it is late here. Dana boomer (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose calling me an expert ;P I alla fall, oppose merge. Support skinning and gutting this article to provide the skeleton of confirmable facts to be used for something like Scandinavian coldblood trotter. Both Dölahest and North Swedish horse have been crossbred to create new lighter racing subtypes. But. There is a practically shared studbook and at least the Swedish regulations actually promote offering Swedish stallions to Norwegian mares. Create Scandinavian coldblood trotter (as a stub, s'il te plait, so I can 5x expand, reftag, and DYKnom it ;3) - or leave it to me altogether - to cover Norwegian, Swedish, and mixed types. I'm not sure if the trotted studbook is closed yet from [insert low value single digit here] generation coldblood-other crosses, but my guess is a tentative yes. I alla fall, the Scandinavian coldblood trotter is IMHO way more credible for the status of a separate breed than, say, those cute horses this George guy breeds, with a population of thousands at least, national level breeding standards, and international sport use. I have located the Swedish travsport regulations and am ready to shoot later today, after I return from work. Pitke (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree on renaming, or restarting with a different name. Ignorance prevents me from suggesting a good one, but I do note that "Scandinavian coldblood trotter" gets exactly 9 hits on Google, almost all to articles here or stuff copied from here. It all looks like a minefield, with Järvsöfaks apparently "claimed" by the North Swedish horse article. I've never knowingly even seen any one of these horses, so I'll shut up now.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say go for it, Pitke. And you are as close to an expert on the Scandanavian stuff as any of us. My own view is that we are better off having longer quality articles than a bunch of stubs. I also have some concerns about Content forks. But I have advocated creating some sort of article on the Scandanavian trotter (under whatever name they are properly called) for some time, so I favor the angle proposed here. As for the goofy US crossbreds, no argument from me, I have been fighting tooth and nail to keep that stuff out of here, but I usually lose and so I have sort of thrown up my hands in despair. (See my spat about the Moyle horse. Some horses one guy bred, stupid to call it a breed. Not a breed. I still lost.) WP:NOTABILITY an extremely low threshold. Montanabw^(talk) 16:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, questions, probably for Pitke: Is there reasonable certainty that the Norwegian and Swedish trotters are now treated as a homogenous single breed? And is the "Dole trotter" in fact the same horse as the Norsk Kallblodstraver? If so, that would mean that the Dølehest article will need a substantial rewrite and will be much slimmer therafter; it needs a good bit of work anyway. Edwards shows "Dole Gulbrandsdal" and "Dole Trotter" as two separate breeds, btw, wrt merge proposal above. Is there any kind of consensus on what name the scandinavian trotter article should have? Or any opposition to using Scandinavian coldblood trotter whatever Google says?
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pitke, please go ahead and re-write this, as I'm sure you're the only one of us with the sources to do it properly. JLAN is correct that we need to figure out if the "Dole Trotter" is the same as the Norsk Kallblodstraver discussed by the trotting registry. I think that working on this one first, and then rewriting Dole Gudbrandsdal is probably the best way to go, once we figure out where the "Dole Trotter" fits in all of this. I have no problem with "Scandanavian coldblood trotter" if that is what seems to fit best, but "Draft Trotter" should probably be deleted as a redirect once that is done, as it is a very ambiguous title. Dana boomer (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts: I suppose we'll be better off calling the thing I'll write today (or soon in any case) simply Coldblood trotter, because Scandinavia spans also Denmark and Iceland (which don't do this stuff), and what I've seen of potential high end sources, Sweden and Norway simply say "coldblood", never "Scandinavian coldblood". The other, more major thing: Dölahest trotter type and SCT are two different things. I'll illustrate. The diagram at left: anything with A has Dölahest blood. Anything with B has North Swedish blood. Anything with X is used for trotting (and has light breed influence in their background). AFAIK anything with X can be accepted for SCT breeding in either country. However, AX is Dölahest trotters with no Swedish blood ("Dölahest trotter type"), and BX the other way around. ABX are trotters with both. Four studbooks exist: A, B, Swedish X, and Norwegian X. AX, ABX and BX may be accepted for breeding in both countries, so the two trotter studbooks overlap some. The following points are educated guessing. 1) Offspring of A and AX are never accepted as A as AX was created by crossbreeding A with light horses. They can be AX however. 2) I don't know if offspring of B and BX can be accepted as B. My guess however is that BX was developed similarly, and B + BX = never B. 3) A + B, A + BX, and B + AX are crossbreds with no chance of being accepted for breeding. Pitke (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice diagram - it illustrates the thought that was brewing at the back of my mind but that I didn't know how to express. One comment though - I have seen statements (in English language sources of iffy reliability on Scandanavian breeds) to the effect that mares of Dole Trotter (AX, I think) breeding can be registered with the Dolahest (A) registry if they aren't fast enough for the trotter registry and they meet the other physical requirements. This becomes not true if they have Swedish blood (i.e., ABX if I'm reading your chart right). I've also seen rumors (here) that the Dolahest (A) and North Swedish Horse (B) can be registered with each other's studbooks if they meet the physical requirements. I'm having trouble verifying these two facts in the Dolahest/Swedish/trotter registries, but, speaking the language, you may have more luck. Dana boomer (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all lost me with the Venn Diagrams! LOL! But seriously, though my mind has officially boggled (=:- O ) I think there is an understandable logic there, and though I have no way to make sense of this trip Through the Looking Glass, I'm going to trust Pitke on this, and confine my efforts to refinement of style and general wordsmithing after the facts are established. I think I'll just trot out of the horse pasture and go work on my new article about a simple topic: engineers and physicists. Montanabw^(talk) 18:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very clear, thank you Pitke! My response, based as usual on mind-numbing ignorance of the topic: would it in fact be clearer to have two new trotter articles here, Norwegian X and Swedish X, Norsk Kallblodstraver and Svensk Kallblodstravare, or whatever those will be called in English, noting the ABX overlap in each? There would then be one article for each stud book, which has a kind of perverse logic.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad idea at all, but just say where we make Scandinavian Coldblood trotter redirect to! {:) Pitke (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page, SCT may refer to either ... or ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig with "may refer to AX or BX, or ABX which we have no article on despite the fact it consists the majority of X"... :/ Pitke (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not favor a bunch of iffy stubs when one longer, good article can be created. I think it's better to create the longer piece, but structured in such a fashion that once there is enough additional material added, then spinoffs can be created. Of course, on the other hand, there is the potential for SCT to be a "sort-of list" in the way, for example, that gaited horse or stock horse is -- a basic overview of the group, then the list of related articles. More than a disambiguation (where they have their own limited and fussy rules) and more of a gateway. And, give that we have eight articles on the virtually identical Indonesian pony breeds, because someone, somewhere, was quite certain that just being on different islands made several of them very, very different, oh hell, that's the horns of the dilemma, anyway! Montanabw^(talk) 04:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got the message here that one was better than two. So I've gone ahead and made a stub at Coldblood trotter. It can always be split and/or renamed later on. I'm sorry that I just don't have the language skills to write more than I have done. Over to the experts ...
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for now, should this article be merged into there are this title made a redirect? Pitke?? Dana?? Montanabw^(talk) 18:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]