Share to:

 

Template talk:Equestrian sports

Draft

Just a draft version, please improve at will.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Should the in-hand events at Category:In-hand showing be added here? Part of horse shows, not exactly a "sport" per se, but a competition. Also, what about Horse riding stunts? Montanabw(talk) 22:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say definately yes to the in hand showing (in the showing section). Horse riding stunts is a bit trickier, but maybe in your nattily titled showing and exhibition. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where should we put the in-hand articles? With the other horse show events? Montanabw(talk) 04:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think they're very much part of showing. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's done some serious sorting out here, and it's much clearer as a result. A few bits seem to have got lost, though, including I think 4-H, Acoso y derribo, Cogoteada, Corrida de sortija, Deporte de Lazo, Equitation, Horse show, Jineteada gaucha, O-Mok-See, Pony Club. I imagine some of those have been left out because they are not equestrian sports (where did the title of the navbox go, btw?), but others should go back. In-hand showing isn't really a sport, though, is it? I mean, a car rally is a (kind of) sport, but a car dealer's showroom is not. The second-level categories should probably go, as they look just awful on mobile devices (just as easy to have FEI Olympic and FEI non-Olympic as two first-level headers). I may look at it myself later on. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Owain and I both tweaked on it, if the title got dumped, whoops and sorry!!! (I don't know how to fix that, one of you two can...) I don't know what to do with the clubs. I suppose we could add a "clubs" header, but the problem is once we start adding organizations, there are a zillion out there, every discipline, every nation, etc... I'm OK with leaving them out, other than the FEI, which is the international group. Breeding/conformation events are addressing -- ultimately -- the suitability of animals for a sport, and they ARE a competition not a "showroom." I guess they are more like a rally (around here, that's where people park their cool cars so people can look at them, then drive them slowly around in a parade or something, with a few doing some sort of race-type stuff)). But not a moral issue. I like the second level categories, though it's also not a moral issue if they stay or go, they help a LOT on a computer, though. I can't imagine reading wikipedia on an iPhone with my eyesight, so I'll take your word on mobile devices. Montanabw(talk) 19:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes, including fixing the syntax so that the kludge-dot can't start a line. I moved some things around, but with no great conviction. I don't know if Corrida de sortija is really different from Carrera de cintas (they have separate articles on es.wp). Field sports is not a good header, as it means something else (huntin', shootin' and fishin'), but I couldn't think what to replace it with. Country sports? I really cant see in-hand showing as a sport; how does it differ from the fat pigs class at the agricultural fair? And how does that differ from the marrows class? (yes, I know that morphology is part of the approval process for many breeds, but I can't see how it is in any way a sport) So I've removed those. I would suggest a separate box for clubs if anyone feels strongly enough about them to make it (I know I don't). What about putting the headers in alphabetical order, perhaps leaving the FEI at the top? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, my bad, as I just made a partial reversion without looking at the talk first, so apologies for that, but i'll discuss reasons here and then maybe we can put it back? OK, first off, I don't think nav boxes are the place for red links and the policy at WP:REDLINK agrees. I think we should add these back in as the articles are created. I struggled with the name for field sports too, and originally grouped it in with rodeo as part of a sort of animal mastery section. For in-hand showing, certainly in the UK it is takn every bit as seriously as the ridden showing, and requires similar skills (but ultimately, is not much different to pig classes), and I think the two groups (ridden and in hand showing) belong together, but the sub grouping helps separate them. For the title, not all of these are recognised sports, but important to capture, and I think equestrianism is probably the better title, as it covers 'use of horses' pretty much, and by convention in templates, the general articles normally come first. Personally, i would argue to keep the nested templates, they are very common and help a lot on normal PCs. I think that generally we should format for computer given the difference in traffic. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 05:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it back the way I left it in order to use the nowrap syntax, which works better (the separator dot can't start a line). Perhaps you'd make the changes you want by editing, rather that reverting, in order to conserve that? Needless to say, I don't agree with any of them, but what the hell? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that 'i don't agree with any of them' is particularly helpful in terms of reaching a stable resolution, it would help if you could explain a bit more so we can get an agreement. I have no particular opinion on nowrap, I jsut missed it in the partial revert. The only reason i went for revert rather than editing was the fiddly bits of restoring bits like the nested categories. On that note, i've checked a few templates on mobile wikipedia, with more complicated nesting than in this template, and they render just fine for mobile, so i'm not sure where the problem lies.

I think the redlinks one is simple, as its against policy, do i'll remove those links.

I also strongly think that equestrian sports is too narrow a definition for the things that would naturally sit in this article, and equestrianism seemed to be the best title to encompass it all, although we could use a explanation bar.

I also think that in-hand showing seems as valid as any other activity on the list. Its not my cup of tea, but it does attract a lot of competitors, has governing bodies etc, so I think they should stay.

It would be good if anyone has got some specific points for or against those?

Regards, OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 12:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:
  1. We have a ton of red links in the Equus template, but that's probably because someone just needs to get off their arse and create them or else do piped links to what's there (it was an aspirational goal at the time, I think). Here, we have the topics thoroughly covered, so I agree with the general rule and oppose adding redlinks. Easy enough to create a stub for one or two things if needed.
  2. I put the in-hand showing back in. At root, it is supposed to be assessing the potential of a horse for participation as an equine athlete (I know reality is not always that, but that's not the point), so at least as relevant as some sport practiced (literally) in outer Mongolia primarily for the purpose of impressing girls! (grin).
  3. I'm fine with either way of formatting, as I'm not particularly good at it myself, I kind of liked the secondary headers, but if they are an issue for some, no big deal.
  4. The "field sports" title could be improved, I don't know to what ("country" to me is a music group wearing cowboy hats and singing about how there's a tear in their beer), the basic concept of the grouping in my mind was "most of the stuff people do out in the natural world and not in an arena or preset jump course." The only gray areas are things like race events, which are in racing, and the cross-country part of Eventing, but that's with the Olympic stuff, so no actual problem there.
  5. I think "equestrianism" is a broader title, more elegant, and perhaps an improvement, though I'm not going to get into a huge debate over titleing. I suppose the real issue on this is the purpose of the navbox -- we probably don't want to add in things like all the training and equipment articles (by the way, I'm sandboxing a tack template if anyone wants to gallop over to my talkpage sandbox and peek at it), but the equestrianism article is sort of the overview there, so maybe a parallel?
  6. I don't like the idea of adding clubs, because if you look at the zillions of associations in the relevant category, it would become a nightmare (just the national equestrian associations affiliated with the FEI alone number quite a few), I think perhaps an equestrian associations list or separate navbox would be OK, though. Montanabw(talk) 16:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. As i said, policy, but then again wp:ignore all rules
2. Agree
3. Still like the sub-headers, and they render fine on mobile for me
4. Field sports - i tried and failed to think of a better title, but if someone find it - great!
5. Agree, i think this should be equestrian activities, but nothing beyond that. So something you do with a horse, rather than something you use with a horse
6. Agree - clubs and organisations have no place here - which is why i dropped Pony Club, but could have their own templat:e
OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 18:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equestrianism vs Equestrian Sports

I think that Equestrianism is a better title, and proposed this above some time ago, which Montana seemed to support at the time, and in the absense of further comment or objection, I made the change, but its been reverted, so if we can settle this it would be great.

Equestrianism is the skill of riding or driving horses - i.e. what you do with them, and not what you use. It is therefore a much better description than 'equestrian sports', as many of the things listed are not really sports (not least of all things like pleasure riding or trail riding, but i think they have a a valid right to be there). Sport has various definitions, but generally there is an element of competitive achievement (even so-called non-competitive sports often emphasise personal best). A lot of people take part in these activities non-competitively, or a a training aid (dressage is a good example - i use it as a valuable training aid, but don't compete because i find it very tedious as a sport), and activities such as conformation and turnout showing stretches any definition of sport, as it involves essentially standing still and being looked at.

Any further thoughts?

OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it certainly needs some attention! When I made it, I conceived it as covering sports involving horses, and nothing else. That doesn't mean it needs to stay that way. However, it does set some more or less definable limits - football isn't here because it doesn't involve horses, grooming isn't here because it isn't a sport. I believe that at the time I was thinking that a sport was something that could be practised at any level, like Owain's dressage, but in which it was possible to compete. In that case, trail riding and so on should be removed - they are horse activities, but not horse sports. My objection to the term "equestrianism" is that no-one seems to know what it means, and our article on it here certainly doesn't help anyone to find out; which in turn may mean that it's difficult to decide what to include here. That's why I reverted the IP edit to that title; I didn't (and don't) feel strongly enough about it to revert Owain's. It would be useful to reach some sort of agreement on what it is supposed to be; my own choice would be to restrict it to sports and title it accordingly.
I see that some well-meaning edits have introduced a couple of other errors too. Paraequestrianism is not a kind of sport, it is a kind of competitor. The FEI has seven competition disciplines, two of which have paraequestrian classes (according to their website, that is). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, there seem to be some show classes in there. If it is to be for sports only, they should go. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that's kinda the heart of it. I don't think trail riding or showing are sports, but i think they deserve equal place in this template, so IMHO i think its the title that needs tweaking. If it was just sports you'd have some odd, quite forced divisons - working hunter is clearly a sport, show hunter not really, despite the fact they are related classes and would appear in the same ring at the same show. I think equestrianism is good, as I believe it incorporates all teh activities you do with a horse, as opposed to the care which would be horsemanship. Equestrian disciplines would be ok, as maybe would equestrian activities, but still prefer my orginal. Any other ideas? OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 13:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess personally at root, I don't think the navbox is needed at all when we have categories to do the same thing (i.e. find related articles). But it's here. Given that we are not likely to create a navbox that can be all things perfectly to all parties, I guess I favor inclusion if the goal is to help people find more stuff. The thing here is that we have a wide range of articles that encompass different disciplines, events, individual competition classes, non-competitive but sporting activities, etc. I don't think it's worth edit warring over what goes where (unless a big problem). I guess I don't have a deep-rooted moral issue about the title, though, to me "horsemanship" is just the riding bit, and "equestrianism" incorporates all activities, including management, but the terms clearly can be seen in multiple ways. "Sport" doesn't have to imply competition (running is a sport, track meets are a competition) n my view, but frankly, I say you folks just hash it out, I'll throw in comments that may sharpen or clarify if needed. I'm not a lot of help here, but mostly thinking aloud. Montanabw(talk) 00:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from user talkpage

Template:Equestrian Sports

I am going to revert some of the changes you made to the template, but before doing so, wanted to give you my rationale behind my changes.

You changed the uppercase "TREC" to the lowercase (but capitalized) "Trec". I think that TREC is correct, since it is an acronym for Techniques de Randonnée Équestre de Compétition. Even in English, the capitalized acronym seems to always be used (see the web site for the British governing body, TREC-UK at http://www/trec-uk.com/ But I may be mistaken, of course. Do you know of any official organizations that spell it "Trec"?

You removed Horseball and Tent Pegging from the list of FEI-recognized, non-Olympic disciplines. Although these two disciplines are hard to find on the FEI web site, they remain the FEI's two bona fide regional disciplines: see http://admin.fei.org/Development/Regional_Disciplines/Pages/Horseball.aspx and http://admin.fei.org/Development/Regional_Disciplines/Pages/Tent_Pegging.aspx I am looking for the link to an article I read a while ago, that said the FEI is thinking of changing their name from "Regional Disciplines" to "Associate Disciplines" or something else, but have not made up their minds yet, which is why they do not currently appear prominently on their web site.

I live in France where TREC and Horseball are a lot more common than in other countries!

WarlanderHorse (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the above here as it seems to be a better place for it. My comments:
  • Google book searches for "le TREC" cheval and "le TREC" horse show the lower-case spelling to be the more common, particularly in English usage.
  • I suggest that until and unless horseball, tent-pegging or indeed any other sport is featured on this page, it is not and cannot be regarded as an FEI competition discipline. If the FEI has not yet made up its mind, how can we?
  • So the template was probably better before the last edit.
    Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a position on trec/TREC/Trec, but I'd say that the organizations that write the rules should make the call; whatever is done in the UK and USA rulebooks, if they exist, should be a starting point, (per WP:ENGLISH and if they have no rules, then use what the French do. As for tent-pegging and horseball, I do agree that those who care are always restoring the FEI status of these sports. So, at best, if we want to segregate them, why not say "FEI Regional disciplines" or something like that -- split the difference, basically. Montanabw(talk) 23:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Events?

Owain's put back a couple of types of competition event that I had removed as irrelevant here. Do people really want this template to start including all possible types of event layout, rulebook, entry requirement and so on? It'll get awfully complicated, there are really a lot. But if not novice handicap, giostra del saraceno or six bar, then why Camas Stump Prairie? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, for a start your edit summary said you were removing as they are not sports. As i've said before, I believe that the 'sports' heading isn't helpful on this template, as there are a lot of things you can do on a horse which somewhat fall outside that definition, even if its competitive. The ones you removed are not activities i'm involved in, but at a quick look, i don't see why they should be excluded from the list. Deciding that, for instance, barrel racing is more important than camas stump is pure POV and therefore against policy. AS a rule of thumb, i'd say that if it warrants its own article under the various notability policies, it has a place here. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 06:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They don't. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They don't what? If they don't deserve an article, then merge them or go through WP:AFD, and then it is a non-issue for the template, but as far as the template is concerned, if it has an article, we should consider it noteworthy. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, that's what I meant, they don't merit individual articles, they are just rule variants of events in better-known sports. That's why I have tagged them for merging into those respective articles. But they don't belong here anyway unless you plan to include individual event rules for all the various sports represented here; to include them but not far more notable events such as, say, speed derby, would be ... well, not impartial. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they are merged (which I don't oppose, but we must not Afd them, we need the redirect) we can remove them from the navbox. At the moment, the navbox contains most of the general overview articles for most disciplines, some of which are in separate sets of competition, others of which may be individual classes within a single horse show. The point of a navbox is, well, navigation, helping people find things where they have interest. So inclusion should be the default if close to relevant, and we are, here, discussing the inclusion criteria. If I were to toss something, I'd toss different things than JLAN, so for now, I suggest we seek a VERY strong consensus before tossing anything, but be pretty generous as to what we include. Montanabw(talk) 22:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kembali kehalaman sebelumnya