User talk:Richard New Forest/Archive 2007

This page is archived discussion from User talk:Richard New Forest. It covers the period from August 2007 to December 2007 inclusive.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Richard New Forest, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

I can see you've been a registered user for a while, but I thought that the welcome message might still be useful. Thanks for the style corrections on Gharial. Enuja 20:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

References in Pollarding

Dieter -

You just tried to do something to the references section I'd added to Pollarding, then undid it again. I'm new to making references work, so I'm not at all sure I'd done it right -- but what were you trying to do, and what didn't work? Richard New Forest 11:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I was trying to bring your "References" item "Oxford English Dictionary Compact Edition 1971...", up to the first line of the page when you click the ref no. (No 1 in this case) thinking your (although quite correct) way wasn't working, but my shorter method didn't work any better either. The References section is still at the bottom of the page when you click it. I apologise as have already done in the summary. Normally, when you click the link number the reference appears as first line right at the top, so anybody trying to identify what is being linked can see it straight away. See section "Origin and usage of term" in "Pollarding" article.

I am transferring this conversation to your own user talk:page. Dieter Simon 22:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dieter – I think I've found what's happening. It's because the text with the reference link is very near the foot of the page, and there is hardly any page below the references section. If the view is already as low as it can go when you click on the ref link, it can move no lower, so your click seems to have been ignored. However, if the refs are off the foot of the screen, the view does move, and if the window is small enough (only a few lines deep), the refs will land at the top as you'd expected – so I think all is as it should be.

Incidentally, why did you move this conversation to my user page? Should I have put it here in the first place – and if so, how would you have seen it? Richard New Forest 22:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Finching

Hi Richard, do you agree that your "finching" article should be merged with "cattle"? Tractorboy60 14:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tractorboy — see my comment on Cattle talk page about this. I think there needs to be either a section on coat colours and patterns on the Cattle page, or a separate coat colours page, into either of which Finching (and a similar one I did for Colour-sided) could go. My reason for making pages on their own was so links could point to them – but links could instead point to a place on a more general page (though not quite sure how to do that...).--Richard New Forest 17:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, my name is Tom. Tractorboy60 22:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Collie

Thanks for your work on the collie article; I've given up several times over the last couple of years on what exactly to say there. Note that quotation marks don't belong around the breed names even if they don't reflect the actual probable origins of the breeds. Those are the official breed names and there are no quotes in the official breed names. So you can take 'em out again or I will. :-) Elf | Talk 01:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have a tremendous amount of history with dog-related articles in wikipedia, although I try very hard these days to stay away, or I get sucked in like I did today when I just came here to look up one little thing... So if you have any general questions or want to draw my attention to something in particular, you can leave a note on my talk page and I'll see it eventually, but who knows when. OR you can go to my user page and click E-mail this user in the left-side toolbox if you want a faster response.

Also, I'm a Border Collie owner, too. :-) Elf | Talk 02:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Elf –

I'm not sure it's important to have the types with their exact breed names here – this is a list with comments and interpretation, not a simple list, where I agree that quotes would not be right. My feeling is that without the quotes it would be easy to miss the anomalies, and think for example that there were five Australian types listed (which of course there are, including the German one...). The quotes gently draw attention to this, without the need for overt comment. Take them out though if you feel strongly about it.

Nice dog. Am I right that he's called Sweep...? Two of my dogs (Welsh Sheepdogs) are in the list too, though I left the third out as his name is not a traditional one (Tig – Kelpie cross). I'll put a pic of one of my others on the Welsh Sheepdog page when I get around to it.--Richard New Forest 10:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the place to address anomalies is in the text and that putting quotes around the breed names is misleading, implying that those are perhaps not the breed names. Nope, my dog's not Sweep--but a bit of browsing among herding dogs indicates that it's a more common name than we see in agility dogs. Probably for "sweeping" around herds or "sweeping" them in. There's a very cool online database of working border collie info (ISDS) that has stuff like this in it: http://home-l2.tiscali.nl/~palado/bcdb/dognames.htm -- maybe we should use that, pick the top 20 names or something, and then we can cite that as a reference. (That was one of the sources I used to be sure that my dog's name--Boost--was not commonly used. ;-) There are SO many BCs working in agility and competitive herding around here & I wanted to be unique.) Looking forward to seeing more Welsh Sheepdog photos. Elf | Talk 16:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy with no quotes – those ought not to be the proper names, but I suppose they're now stuck... Good idea about the database for names – however, they are the commonest names, not necessarily the traditional ones, and so some very traditional ones get pushed rather low (Rex, Flash, Tip, Judy). How could you not have Flash? (Also, Sam is at 21, and we can't leave him out...). Useful database though.

Lots of Welsh Sheepdog photos at http://www.welsh-sheepdogs.co.uk/ (select Gallery) --Richard New Forest 16:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this discussion to Talk:Collie; we should probably continue any further discussion there. (If you want to, you could delete the text from here and just put a note under this heading about "moved to Talk:Collie". Or whatever. it's your talk pg. :-) Elf | Talk 18:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Agriculture

Hi Richard, I was wondering if you knew about this and if so whether you would like to join? If so look at User:Doug/WikiProject Agriculture.Cheers. Tom 08:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Richard! Take a look at the priorities and thoughts we've put on the Project Page and feel free to add, adjust, or discuss on the talk page. I think we will move from my userspace to Wikispace soon.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Corgis...

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Yes, I should have reverted the page, not adding a speedy deletion tag. I did not view the history of the page. Sorry, it was my mistake. Thanks for pointing this out to me!! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ring Ouzel

Hi Richard, please note that it is an agreed Wikipedia convention that bird species are fully capitalised, so it's Blackbird and Ring Ousel. Thanks, Jimfbleak 12:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

note the following in the naming fauna article: Editors involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds have agreed to use the official recommendations of ornithological societies, for example Peregrine Falcon (not duck hawk, Falco peregrinus, etc.) Jimfbleak 12:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird names and article titles Jimfbleak 12:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I was not aware of that. Looks very messy and amateur to me, but I'm happy to go along with the convention (as I thought I was already...). Do you think there needs to be a note of it in the policy I linked (Wikipedia:Capitalisation#Animals, plants, and other organisms)?--Richard New Forest 12:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Rock Pigeon

There is some discussion of your article fork, which I support, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds Jimfbleak 15:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Why no discussion on Rock Pigeon page I wonder, despite complaint about absence of discussion? I see fait has been accomplied anyway...--Richard New Forest 15:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Harness and driving

Just a quick thanks for your contributions, but a heads up to keep the general driving and harness articles balanced between the draft horse stuff and the light horse harness material, we have a lot of separate articles floating around out there (many of which need help) that can be seen at Category:Horse driving and related links. Montanabw^(talk) 00:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks – I'll have a look around. You're right to raise that balance. So much overlaps, but then a lot is different – and then how do we incorporate other traditions, such as the Russian style with a hoop over the shafts, never mind how they do it in Asia etc – and where does "horse-drawn" stop and more general "draught" start?--Richard New Forest 09:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well Driving (horse) is pretty clearly about equids, as is horse harness, so not an issue there. There is room for more articles, of course! Draft horse is pretty light on content, and harness is light on different types, certainly more articles could be created. There is an article on Yoke I believe. And I have tossed in my two bits at Cattle, my interest there is more the beef cattle side, so I haven't a lot to contribute on the oxen issue. As for the different types in other cultures, maybe take a look at Saddle, which, though far from a perfect article, at least takes a shot at it. I have no problem with a section farther down the page titled "Harness variations" or "History" or whatever. By the way, you have probably already discovered that there are about 10 gazillion articles on various types of carriages and carts, I am not even going to TRY and wade into those! =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 17:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Cattle race

Good one there, I couldn't do anything with that red link :)--Tallard 20:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It was my redlink in the first place, so I ought to have done it before...--Richard New Forest 20:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Tap er light!

"Tap 'er light" is actually an extremely localized expression that was used in the major mining operations of the American west, most notably Butte, Montana. Anyone who says it pretty much labels themselves as having roots within about a 100-200 mile radius of Butte. (I'm not from Butte, but had family that grew up within that radius) It literally means, "take it easy," or "be careful and have a good day." It comes from the practice of setting explosives in the mines, they had to pack in certain types of explosive charges by carefully tapping them in with a hammer. Hit the charge too hard, or miss and strike a spark off of rock, and ka-BOOM! (grin) Lots of cowboys in the local area who supplied beef cattle to the miners picked up the saying, so it spread amongst cattlemen too. FYI, I quit WIkiProject Agriculture after a bunch of assorted stuff that happened today, feel free to ask me any horse/cowboy/lingo questions over on my talk page, but I'm not going to be watching that project any more. Other fish to fry. Montanabw^(talk) 06:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Fish to fry" – I know that one... I saw you'd withdrawn from the Agri project – a shame, as in my view you've been making useful contributions. I must say I don't really understand what it was all about, & have taken care to keep out of it. Sounds as if "Tap 'er light" might need an article... Round here "100-200 mile radius" covers half the country, and is hardly "extremely localised"! There are whole dialects (and indeed languages) in Britain which occupy that sort of area. Once when I lived in a small town on the south coast of England, I knew an old chap who told me he was local, but said his wife was "not from round here at all". It turned out she was from the next village, 3 miles away. That's what I call localised...--Richard New Forest 08:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL! And while we think that Montana has wide open spaces, the Aussies have US beat; in the Outback, 500 miles to them is no big deal! I just did a little jaunt for work, 200 miles up and back within 24 hours. Passed more cows than people! (Well, more deer, anyway, it's hunting season and the rut! Major road hazard!) As for Ag, something I thought was a tongue in cheek way to diffuse what I thought was a silly and unproductive debate blew up in my face, which reminded me why I don't particularly care for wikiprojects generally, finding them places where people tend to go on and on about nothing and accomplish very little. So I bailed, but shall remain available for questions if anyone wants to drop me a line on my talk page. Oh, do you think we can now move Oddbald to "TriColoured" or whatever you folks over there on that side of the pond call a bay pinto? Montanabw^(talk) 20:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Carriages

Thanks for creating the disambiguation page for "carriage" and for your other edits of this article, which improve the text and make it less ponderous. I am looking at the various carriage articles, adding details, checking links and making the collection more coherent.

I plan to modify the "Types of horse-drawn carriages" section by briefly annotating each name (as disambiguation pages do) and rearranging the lot by listing together types of buggy, chaise, chariot, coach and gig. Those not readily classified would remain in alphabetical order. I think this would be more helpful to the users than the existing list of names. But does this approach violate any Wikipedia conventions?

However, I was putting together a group of terms (not yet finished) that associate carriages with other parts of the culture, such as carriage dog, carriage horse, carriage folk, carriage trade, carriage starter and carriage port. Since carriages played such a significant part in 19th century society, it would help to include them in an article about carriages. If not here, than where? You can see what I have in mind by looking at the "coach" article (which I hope you won't change before explaining why).

I am still working on the carriage and related articles. Please check back in about a week. Fbarw 11:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope I didn't tread on your toes – I saw you'd more to do, and tried to keep it minimal. I'm no authority on Wiki rules, so not sure about your proposal. I did wonder about a separate terminology page for carriage and coach, or perhaps for both together? Don't see why the various things shouldn't be classified. I'll have a look at carriage once you've sorted it out, and discuss any significant changes first for Coach (carriage) (I did notice in Wiki style that bold is supposed to be kept for the first instance of the headword only, with italics used elsewhere, though this doesn't seem to be kept to very well). As it happens, I was brought up in an old coachhouse in Surrey – the definition is a bit broader in Britain, usually including stables and accommodation for the coachman or other servants. In our case, this was effectively a four-room cottage above the coachroom and stables, with no windows on the side towards what had been the big house, so the staff couldn't spy on the gentry. My room was in the hayloft. (Is that original research though...?) --Richard New Forest 19:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) Can you point me to the Wiki guideline about bolding? All I could find was this: "The first (and only the first) appearance of the title is in boldface, including its abbreviation in parentheses, if given. Equivalent names may follow, and may or may not be in boldface. Highlighted items are not linked, and boldface is not used subsequently in the first paragraph." This seems to refer only to the first paragraph of an article, without guidance as to what should happen afterwards. Meanwhile, my self-made rule is to bold the first appearance of any example of the main subject (e.g. stagecoach and turnout in the "coach" article) and terms derived from the main topic (coaching, coach coat) while parts (perch, splinter bar) are italicized. (2) I hope you will give further thought to including mention of persons (coachman), animals (coach horse) and things (coachwhip, hammercloth) associated with the main topic. Their inclusion places the subject in a broader context. (3) Your upbringing so near a stable gives your comments more than a whiff of authenticity — nay, even sanctity. In consequence, I have broadened the description of coaching inn; now it "served coach travelers and offered stabling for the horses of stagecoaches". This comes from a Website I just discovered: English Heritage Online thesaurus -- http://thesaurus.english-heritage.org.uk. Now back to the job. Fbarw 21:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was at least partly wrong about bolding... In WP:Style#Italics it says bolding is not normally used for emphasis – I think this is what I remembered incorrectly as "don't use it ever". However, in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Boldface (and also on the same page under Emphasis) it explains more fully the circumstances for using it. It confirms not for emphasis, but says it can be used for definition lists, which what caught my eye in Coach (carriage). I think definitions in the text have to count as emphasis, not a list, and so ought to be italics.

It was not a coaching inn but a coach-house that I was brought up in. I've changed the text for that too.

Sanctity? Sanctimonious, perhaps...--Richard New Forest 21:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The bold/italics distinction is a matter of perception; I would count definitions in the text as closer in function to a list (albeit in paragraph form) than to emphasis, and here I illustrate what I regard as emphasis. However, I don't deny your alternative perception, and I would not object to any changes you make accordingly. But I think I shall suggest that the style manual be made more precise to resolve this issue.

To make a clearer distinction between "coach house" and "coaching inn" in the coach (carriage) article, I have added a phrase from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2006). Does this correspond to your understanding of the term? I note that you have access to the Oxford English Dictionary, which I lack, though the Concise Oxford defines "coaching house" as "an inn along a route followed by horse-drawn coaches, at which horses could be changed".

But now for something more important. My comment (2) above, about the carriage article, was triggered by my belief that you had intentionally deleted references to "carriage horse", "carriage dog", "carriage trade", "carriage starter" and "carriage porch", since they were no longer in the final article. But then I noticed that they were still on the edit page, along with other disappeared text. Apparently, one of your reference insertions cause them to vanish. I tried to figure out how to correct this but was flummoxed. The trouble seems to lie in the paragraph beginning:

The word carriage is from Old Northern French cariage, to carry in a vehicle.

Can you help?

By the way, how many indents can we use before we fall off the right margin? Fbarw 04:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, but I just put in 16 colons to find out! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 04:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to drop back to the indent where I started (& stay there). The lost text problem was because I'd missed a "/" from the repeated reference, and so everything from there to the next "/ref" was swallowed by it and thus hidden. Sorry, I ought to have noticed.

The contempt of familiarity... What I'd not remembered about coach house is that of course a "coach" house is really for a private carriage. I've corrected this in the coach article – perhaps coach house should go in Carriage as well? The additional definition was spot on by the way.

A lot of this stuff really ought to be on the talk pages of coach and carriage – any objection if I copy relevant bits there?

My copy of the OED is a 2-vol photo-reduced edition, published in 1979 but actually a facsimile of the 1933 ed. It was an introductory book club offer, and at about a quid was an excellent investment – and you don't need 2 metres of reinforced shelf space for it. The only trouble is that nowadays the text (about 3 point) is only legible with a lens... Let me know if there's anything I can look up in it ‐ it really is extremely comprehensive for words in existence before about 1880 to 1930 (depending on where in the alphabet).--Richard New Forest 12:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And you know what? The article looks cleaner debolded. Yes, I'll include coach house in the carriage article. I'm in no position to object to reproducing this exchange elsewhere, since in Wikipedia we relinquish all rights.

I think I'll turn next to the article on brothels, in the hope of meeting somebody who was brought up in one. Fbarw 20:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is going to take more than the week I promised earlier, since I can't get to it every day. I'm adding to the introductory part piecemeal while working offline on the annotated list of carriages. I'll let you know here when each of these two phases is complete. 72.227.137.35 21:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC) (That's me, forgot to log in.)

I have pretty much finished editing the introductory part of "Carriage", though I may still make minor changes. I continue work offline on the annotated list of carriage types, which I shall dump into the article when it is ready. At the same time I am checking links and adding or editing them where desirable. Will let you know. Fbarw 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Herdwick sheep

First off, thanks for taking a look at the article. It's nice to see someone else there. However, I do object to some of your edits, I have made a talk explanation to address them. Thanks again, VanTucky ^Talk 05:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just checking in to make sure that you're satisfied with the current version of the article, I made some additional edits and comments. VanTucky ^Talk 23:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not had a chance to look properly – OK on quick glance. Will look properly over next couple of days when I have time.--Richard New Forest (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

polled Park cattle

Hi Richard,

Just got your message in regard to my additions to the British White cattle wikipedia entry. There are major errors in the original presentation, and I have endeavored to correct them. The breed is an ancient one and to suppose that there is not speculation in what is fast becoming the 'gospel' of the history of the breed (as well as it's sister breed, the horned White Park) is to suppose in error. I raise British White cattle and well know what they look like. I've visited every major herd in the UK as well, and again well know what they look like, what their significant traits are.

Insofar as their history, please do read my very in-depth exploration of the breed at http://www.jwest.biz/britishwhitehistory.htm . Even more important, please do read the link I've added to Jessica Hemmings' research of the breed. If there ever was an unbiased approach and conclusion in regard to their place in history, this is it.

Insofar as using the terms 'I believe' etc... you must take into consideration that I am one of the few current researchers of the history and significance of this breed, and I will be pulling together a book on the history of the Park cattle, both polled and horned, in an effort to balance the current direction of what is becoming historical lore that is inaccurate.

The false claims in regard to the polled Park Cattle in the writings of Lawrence Alderson are easily disproved from the UK's own genetic database. Just because he is published, does not make him an authority. All authors that published before him are in complete disagreement as to many, many aspects of the breed, horned or polled. Please read Hemmings' research, contact her as well, and then help me prevent the loss of this very special breed's place in history.

Best Regards,

Jimmie West www.jwest.biz —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShirleySue (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Above copied to User talk:ShirleySue & discussion continued there. --Richard New Forest (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I really like your changes, and I made some very minor ones this evening. I answered back your last comments, but as I am not at all up to par with the way this whole 'talk' works, you may not have gotten my last response to your comments that I posted to ShirleySue -- I like using my Mom's name btw, and she was always quite dogged about her stance on things that meant a lot to her. Jimmie —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShirleySue (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Above copied to User talk:ShirleySue.--Richard New Forest (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sheep

Hey Richard, thanks for contributing to the sheep work I've been doing. Glad to have someone to copyedit when I'm done, as it's all to easy to get stuck on certain facts (that may not always be 100% applicable to sheep in general) when you're slogging through tons of reading material. Anyway, I don't mean to pry if you want to stay private, but I'm from the States. Thus, a lot of the material easily available to me is rather U.S.-centric on the history side of things. If you're from elsewhere in the world, it would be a great help to me if you could try and fill in some of the blanks as I expand the history section in the next few days. Thanks again, VanTucky ^talk 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Van Tucky - New Forest is the clue... I live in Hampshire in southern England – brought up in Surrey, but I've also lived in Wales, where I worked on sheep farms for a while (mostly Welsh mountain and Speckled-face). Otherwise I wouldn't consider myself any kind of expert on sheep (I'm a cattle farmer, among other things), but I'll do what I can. Actually, we are thinking of getting sheep soon – either Herdwick, Welsh mountain, or one of the primitives – Shetland or Hebridean.--Richard New Forest (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating, I'm totally jealous. My hometown is not much for sheep farming (like the rest of the US), but we do have one of the highest per capita densities of horses of any county in the world. Mostly I've only seen farm flocks of Suffolks around. But Oregon (I live in Portland) does have a few large range bands of Katahdins and the like. Oregonians are big on grass-fed products right now. I'd love to hear what you decide on. Best regards, VanTucky ^talk 00:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

agriculture and oil

That section is utter nonsense. Create a section on ENERGY prices and agriculture if you wish, but as a source of raw material, coal can be used for anything oil can be used for. It is original research - unsourced nonsense that no reliable source will support. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(Replied on User talk:WAS 4.250. --Richard New Forest (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC))

Ownership of strips in the open fields

You recently edited the enclosure article. I'm hoping that we can agree some compromise. Anyway, I'll post something on the talk page and let's see if we can hammer out an agreed text. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

References in Enclosure

Thanks for the tips. I'm afraid I wasn't planning to do much with the existing references (at least for the moment). Mainly I'm planning to make a few edits and provide new references for them. Regards, Rjm at sleepers (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PS I've now had a quick look to see if I could do something with the text to produce in-line citations. Unfortunately, in most cases, I don't recognise the work being alluded to. I suspect from the tone, that they are Marxist historians that I have never read. I fear that getting this article to a state I would feel happy with will be a long term project. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, great one of UK agricultural terms

Now that the "Oddbald" crisis is over and we seem to have momentarily cleaned up the various fence articles, I have new problems with UK/USA animal terminology. Actually a couple.

1. I need the correct UK word for Horse trailer to go into that article, maybe with some appropriate redirects. Can you help?
2. In the USA, a female donkey is a "Jenny," and the medieval ambling Spanish horse from which a lot of American horse breeds derived was the "Jennet," but the article titled Jennet claims that this is also the female term for donkey in the UK; the problem is that "Jennet" is also a type of Medieval horse and, in fact, "Spanish Jennet" redirects to "Jennet," here, and the historical use of the term is quite clear. So if indeed female donkeys in the UK ARE Jennets, well, interesting word origin (going back perhaps to the days of the Armada or Henry VIII's dislike of small horses? An insult, maybe?) and I need to know for sure one way or the other. Anyway, clearing up the Jennet/Jenny thing would be much appreciated. Take a peek at the article and either fix it if it's easy to do so, or go to the talk page there if it's more complicated and we'll figure it out.

If I find more assorted disasters, I'll let you know. Oh, by the way, take a look at hay. would you? USA and Aussie perspectives are in there, but nothing much on UK or Europe generally, plus need a bit more info on feeding hay to cows and sheep, etc. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 06:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi –

OK, do what I can. Starting with "momentarily". In Britain, this means "for a moment" (that is, just for a short while, now stopped), whereas I think you mean "for the moment" (starting then, continuing till now, but maybe not for much longer). I think the latter meaning was used formerly, and may still be in some areas (Scotland?).

"Horse trailer" would be understood, but most commonly it's called a "horse box". "Horse trailer" tends to be used when distinguishing from a horse lorry, which is also a horse box. Very large trailers are not usually used on private vehicles in Europe, probably because of having smaller tow vehicles, not quite such cheap fuel, narrower roads & gates, and also I think more restrictive driving and loading legislation. So horse trailers usually take only two horses, and any more go in a lorry ("truck"). Likewise cattle – a one ton 12 ft trailer with four or five cattle takes me close to the trailer limit for a Land Rover Defender 110, which is the biggest tow vehicle most people have either commercially or privately. So the gooseneck-style trailer is virtually unknown here, and wouldn't go through many gateways anyway – never seen a horse one. An artic ("semi-trailer") horsebox would only be used by the biggest racing yards – I might have seen one or two ever. Rigid-chassis lorry horseboxes are not uncommon though.

I'll look up jenny/jennet. I know the term jenny for a donkey, but not sure about jennet. Will also look again at hay. --Richard New Forest (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reassured that you use "jenny." If that is consistent, we should remove any donkey references from the Jennet article and do a word search for other refs. I can help with that. Montanabw^(talk) 20:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Checked the OED for "jenny". It says it can be any female animal, but especially a jenny-ass – also "Jenny" Wren (same species as your Winter Wren), which was regarded (probably jocularly) as the female of the Robin Redbreast (nothing to do with the American Robin). Under "jennet" it talks about the horse, and about soldiers mounted on such a horse, but nothing about asses. I suspect that if "jennet" is ever used for female donkeys, it's a mistake for jenny. I've put "fact" tags in Jennet – the refs currently given there appear very unreliable (if they say donkeys are measured to the "hightest" part of the withers, they are not much of a ref for language...) You'll see my comment on the talk page.--Richard New Forest (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Answered on Talk:Jennet. I agree with you. Tossed all donkey refs there, created Jenny (donkey). (if anyone cares, they can whine; I doubt anyone cares) May want to add your info there. Also check donkey for any errors, I think I tossed all Jennet references in that article. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 19:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem on sheep

Hi Richard, just wanted to give you a head's up on Sheep. A user has made some controversial claims without strong references, and has also made a WP:OWN accusation. I'd like to hear from some other voices to get a better group consensus. Thanks, VanTucky ^talk 09:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Had just seen the exchange, which seems to have got a bit heated. Will chip in soon. --Richard New Forest (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Great Crested Newt

Regardless of the fact that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 does not cover Northern Ireland, it is still an act that was passed by the Parliament of the UK and the link is correct. Moreover internal links in Wikipedia articles are not meant to link to disambiguation pages; they're meant to link to relevant articles. You may examine the relevant guideline here. There is currently a project underway to eliminate links to disambiguation pages. You can find out about it here. If you still dispute the disambiguation, you're welcome to relink in any way you like, including delinking entirely, so long as you don't link to Britain. Doing that will only cause Great Crested Newt to appear on a list of pages needing disambiguation, resulting in another visit by myself or another editor to fix the link. Please avoid creating links to disambiguation pages.

Thank you for your kind attention and happy editing.

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course the link should not be to a disambig page, and I ought to have checked that. UK is not however correct – the Act does not cover the UK, so it is not a UK Act in that sense – Great Britain would have been better (though does this include the Scottish islands?). I've changed it anyway to say England, Wales and Scotland – see what you think. --Richard New Forest (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Section move

Thanks for your comments Richard, I appreciate your involvement. However, I remind you that we are admonished to be bold on Wikipedia. As moving a large section might be controversial, I took the 24 hours to be courteous of other contributors. But suggesting changes beforehand on talk at all is not required by any guideline or policy. I struggle to maintain the utmost courtesy for others right to have an opinion on article content. But if you aren't present to comment, then there is nothing that should stop contributors from being bold and getting things done. You can always protest after changes have been made, and nothing is set in stone. VanTucky ^talk 00:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral view?

Hey Richard, VanTucky and I seem to be having a minor creative difference of opinion over the lead photo at horse. He changed the lead image (which has been a very stable image, I think for well over a year) and I reverted it back. The two images in question are on the talk page with the public part of the discussion, finishing up a discussion started over on our respective talk pages where we both made comments were perceived as a little too snarky by the recipient and thus we apparently managed to piss each other off. So, would you be so kind as to take a glance at the discussion at Talk:Horse and if you feel like weighing in, to weigh in with an unbiased view? Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 09:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I think we are over it. Montanabw^(talk) 09:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Invite to WikiProject Equine

This is the official word: WikiProject Equine was quietly created by someone while the rest of us were endlessly discussing a WikiProject Horse. We have an official project! So let's go with it, and I am officially inviting you to formally join! Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine, add your name to the list and see what you can contribute. If you haven't already joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds or one of the other "child" or "affiliated" wikiprojects at WikiProject Equine, please feel free to do so. Just trying to tag articles with the new templates has awakened me to the fact that there are over 1000 equine articles in Wikipedia! (My watchlist alone is now at something like 700+) There's much to do and plenty for everyone! Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 09:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Chilworth, Surrey

I liked the picture SuzanneKn (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Suzanne – I can't take credit for the photo itself (though I have taken some from almost the same spot) – I only corrected the caption, which said it was taken from the Downs. I think the photographer thought that the Chantries is Chalk, not Greensand – you can't see Chilworth from the downs.