User talk:Pitke/Archive 1

File:Caballo.jpg

Hi Pitke,
from where did you get the higher-res version of that image and why did you cv-tag it thereafter? --Túrelio (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The high resolution version is from a TinEye search (a random website, certainly no free use tagging there ) but now that you mention it, uploading a random bigger version was such a dumb act. Pitke (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted to understand. --Túrelio (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Saint Martinus.png

Hei, myös valokuva tuosta patsaasta tarvitsee lisenssin. Lähinnä {{PD-Finland50}} voisi sopia, muuten jouduttaneen poistamaan. --A333 (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No voi yhen, ota tuostakin selvää :X Pakko roskittaa. Pitke (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Bos taurus

I reverted your removal of this category, since it was not a duplicate or parent category of any other category on those images. Most of the subcats you added are related to the cattle category, which could be one of a couple species. Bos taurus, as a category, is a scientific classification necessary and distinct from the others. Steven Walling (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, but wouldn't it be better to have the Bos taurus breed categories under Bos taurus, rather than having random Bos taurus breed pictures categorised under Bos taurus? Pitke (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Logically it makes sense to have the Bos taurus breeds separate from the Bos indicus breeds, but finding them all in a single place takes precedent I think. You might propose it at Category:Cattle breeds though, or simple add new subcategories for identifying taurus and indicus breeds. Steven Walling (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File:North Forks Cardi Jessica Wisdom Final Salute 5-Apr-09 3-53 PM.jpg

Hello Pitke,

I have seen your undo of my version (27.02.2010, 00:42) of this image.

I am trying to avoid the overfilling of the categories dressage, show jumping and eventing. in the sense of Commons:Categories#Over-categorization I move the images in subcategories. This image is part of the Category:Jessica Wisdom, so it is part of a subcategory of dressage (dressage --> dressage riders --> dressage riders by country --> dressage riders of the United States --> Jessica Wisdom).

Because of your objection (the only proper one of a salute we've got for now): I think you're right. Because of this I have created a new category: Salute (dressage). It is a direct subcategory of the dressage. --Nordlicht8 (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's great. Pitke (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Category tweaks

Hey Pitke, a couple more English language tweaks...the categories "Dutch Riding Horse" and "KWPN" basically should be merged into "Dutch Warmblood." No such thing in English as "Dutch Riding Horse", at least not as a breed, as far as I know. And KWPN is the official registry for Dutch Warmbloods, though not all Dutch Warmbloods are necessarily accepted into the KWPN...anyway another category name change. If you have questions or whatever, drop me a line on en.wiki, I'm hardly ever over here. Montanabw (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

ALso tweaked the stuff on Arabians. "Arabian" is the pure breed, it's an insult to purebreds to call a partbred an "Arabian" (hint). Montanabw (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Umm... what? I kinda get what you're talking about, but I haven't actually done a lot about the breed categories... Maybe you should contact Kersti instead? Pitke (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't sweat the Arabian stuff, then. I'm just right! (grin) As for the rest, I don't know how to change or rename categories here and I don't really want to get into a fight with Kersti because we've been quite civil these last couple of years (we used to spat). German language categorization differs from English in a lot of ways, but "Dutch Warmblood" is what we call them in English...KWPN designates the best Dutch Warmbloods that get accepted into the KWPN registry. Montanabw (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

KWPN under Dutch Warmblood? Suits me and how it's seen in Finland too. Pitke (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a brief list for your catting needs:

• Renaming a small cat: change categories for each picture manually (works exactly as it does in Wikipedia). Copy all stuff from the old cat's page to the new cat's page, updating as needed. If the old cat should be left in (it's a common synonym or something), replace it contents with {{Category redirect}} - it'll automatically recategorise stuff put in the old cat. Leave in hidden commentary/edit summary to explain if needed. If the old name is useless, leave the contents and add {{Speedy}} with explanations. Often just "unneeded faulty name; new cat at XX" works fine.
• Renaming a large cat: leave files in the old category. Copy contents of old cat page to the new cat page, and replace with {{Category redirect}}. All files will be automatically recatted later. Have the old cat speedied if needed. Pitke (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybes

Hi Pitke, IMHO, I don't see any evidence that File:Framhaldskólamót 2009 604.jpg is a splashed white...cremellos have blue eyes. Also, FYI, somehow it seems that "spalshed white" in Europe sometimes means what "Sabino" means in the states (and to make matters worse, in South America, "Sabino" describes frame overos,,,). This is of critical importance to know because "splashed white" in US Paint horses is associated with a genetic defect that leads to deafness. So, in other words, if you call a sabino "splash," you will make the owner super unhappy, as there are no genetic defects to date associated with sabino, while there ARE genetic defects associated with frame and splash. For example, there is a European study that calls the Arabian horse Khemosabi a "splashed" white, when American breeders say he carries sabino, and it really upsets people to imply a horse carries a potential genetic defect even when it's true, but especially when it's not! Just FYI. I don't know the solution, but added a note to the color page and I'll let you sort it from there. Montanabw (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the blue eyes COULD be solely because of double cream dilute, BUT the fact the horse has bald face and one white foot (uggh dirty feet) heavily indicate Spl because 1) Icelandic horse gene pool has no Sabino factors and 2) large face markings and blue eyes (even without large markings) in Icelandic horses are rare without Spl factor AND especially because both you and me have missed the fact the horse has normal GREY skin, therefore being a very pale palomino and not a cremello XD Pitke (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And on other news, if you're worried about my categorising spotting patterns, you're welcome to see how I've done it. The mother cat is Category:Horse spotting patterns, most of the stuff there is catted by me. Pitke (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Overall, the cats are pretty good, actually, you don't have the benefit of knowing how many times I hit "edit" and then went, "oh never mind, that one is fine! LOL!" I too should have noticed that the uploader identified the horse as a palomino (and I KNOW how much lighter their winter coats can be from their summer coats!), and it's ture that you can't see any white feet through the dirt. The wide blaze is also hard to see too (there is a debate over whether white has to extend past eye for a true "bald" face, versus a really wide blaze, hair-splitting, IMHO) I am curious if what they call "splash" in the Icelandic pool is what Arabian and Clydesdale breeders call "Sabino." It isn't the same "sabino" as the SB-1 gene that produces white horses when homozygous, but it produces bold white markings. To a US breeder, "splashed white" is something primarily seen in Paints and Mustangs -- the literally dipped in a bucket of white paint look, often with white heads and blue eyes (though frame overos also can have white heads and blue eyes), but the correlation to deafness is a big deal -- do Icelandics have trouble with deaf individuals or horses with all-white heads? This is why I wonder...can you do genetic testing for this "splash factor" in Icelandics? Frankly, the color stuff is a mess -- only User: Countercanter seems to understand it, and she can't always explain it in layman's terms! The same traits that cause plain old white markings seem to live on the horse genome like next door neighbors to the spotting pattern stuff. The eye color thing is even more fascinating... Montanabw 4.254.230.169 21:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The uploader is me :P And I identified it cremello myself, seeing cream-coloured coat, blue eyes and pink upper muzzle, never noticing the grey skin. Buuut the hooves seem to indicate the horse has more or less white in three feet, and the right foreleg is mostly whiteless (dark hoof). Also, the tail seems to have a white tip, but it could just be light and stuff. Pitke (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

To reheat the old thread, the Icelandic splashes show no characteristics associated with sabino patterns (such as "creeping" front edges of stockings, lacey stocking lines, roaning or roaned edges of markings). The bolder patterned non-tobiano horses show typical splashed white characteristics: blue eyes without white pattern on eye, three socks and one high white leg, white-tipped tail. I don't know if the factor has been identified yet, so technically it might be more related to sabino than the Spl factor, but until then... Pitke (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:DSCN3869.JPG

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:DSCN3869.JPG, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Wknight94 ^talk 12:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong uploader, forwarding this to the original guy. Pitke (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Woops, sorry! Thank you. Feel free to remove this.... Wknight94 ^talk 14:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured?

Hello, I have a little question - what is your opinion can this image be featured?--George M. (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, why not? I think it's great, though I'm not familiar with the Featured Image system. Can't hurt to nominate it now can it :) Pitke (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank's! I'll try - it won't hurt anyway :)--George M. (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Equus ferus caballus (Dole Gudbrandsdal).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Request

(poor english) I have asked for aid to User:Cookie because I cannot understand exactly what you say to me. I speak Galician, Spanish and Portuguese, but I have difficulties with the English.

I have tried to improve the image, but I spoil the edges of the hands.

You can download a trial version of Photoshop lightroom 3 here. greetings--Lmbuga (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want, I can upload the new version of the image with diferent name--Lmbuga (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have received the translation. I don't have Adobe Photoshop (In order to speak with me, I request to you that you use simple orations whenever you can).

The edges of the hands are bad (File:Palkinnot - retouched.jpg). If the image were RAW possibly did not pass that. When giving luminosity, the shades of the left hand have noise. I have tried it of several ways, but I do not like the result--Lmbuga (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :) Pitke (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that your image is better than mine. Greetings--Lmbuga (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Przewalski-Pferd Fellpflege 2007-06-08 168.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I like it. --Quartl 07:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Icelandic horse.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Oppose - Please reformulate the scope, and add the geolocation. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC) - Solved. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 14:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with the scope? It's perfectly fine as a horse breed. It was taken in Iceland, no further info. Will snoop around in case there's something to be found. Pitke (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Added geolocation (or tried at least). Pitke (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "category:" should be removed. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 15:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Pitke (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Support I am absolutely not a specialist in horse breeds but the en:WP article is a Featured Article which is a good help for reviewing this image. As far as I can see, the animal presents the breed characteristics (at least head, neck, chest, back, legs, mane ; I don't feel very self-assured to assess the the withers, shoulders, croup and tail). Its gray coat color is one of the breed. One could prefer an image of a horse alone, but the rider gives the scale, which is important for this breed (often considered pony size). The horse is gambling, showing a gait very specific to the breed (the tölt). The image is documented and geocoded. I find it is the nicest one of its category with all these features. => OK to me. --Myrabella (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 407-t-Goldencoast-Pegasos-0.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments why did you take the wrong side? --Mbdortmund 15:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Is this a joke or serious critique...? The rear view is valuable to those estimating the animal's overall heaviness and condition, and does not have to deal with the issue of having the handler's face visible. This was the better direction, the other would have been riddled with counterlight and a busy background (there were dozens of photographers present, there's a reason you don't see them in the background - everyone knew it was the worst direction possible). Rear shots with the horse's face visible are harder to get than front shots, you see, and IMHO this horse peering behind her shoulder is quite appealing. Pitke 17:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC) ah, now I see, there is a horse, too ;-) --Mbdortmund 21:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Nice view :-). --Quartl 09:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for categorising lots of files. I don´t know if you have seen: there is no Category:Chestnut horses yet. Best regards, --4028mdk09 (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks :) Yes, I'm aware the category doesn't exist... yet. I've been wanting to rename Category:Chestnut (coat) for a long time now. Pitke (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Category redirects

Hi! Just so you know all category redirects should use {{Category redirect}}, which is a soft redirect too. Using this template allows a bot to routinely recategorize any files put in the redirected category. Also, when someone tries to add that category with HotCat, it will automatically resolve to the correct category name when saving. Rocket000 (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to Category:Brown horses, which I believe you are, not allowing a bot to move the files (or HotCat to automatically change the cat name) is a needed function. Brown is unfortunately both a more or less esoteric jargon term for a specific type of horse colouration (see en:Seal brown (horse) and especially en:Seal_brown_(horse)#Seal_browns_on_paper for futher details), and a very commonplace colour name (see Category talk:Seal brown horses for some discussion and a gallery on genetically and name-wise different horse colourations that all could be described as "brown"). User:Pitke/Brown holds my record of "brown" horses miscategorized most probably in the Brown horses category and recatted automatically into the Seal brown horses cat. These hits are only those found and recatted by me. The whole "colour term vs colour term" and "what should this category be called to not attract an assload of miscats by unknowing people" mess is a big one... If it was for me, the Brown horses category would hold all brown horse related cats (quite similarly to Category:Brown animals) and collect those unavoidable miscats until a more knowledgeable person could subcat them. It would not include the Seal brown horses cat, either. Another possible (but not too elegant) solution might be redirecting "Brown horses" to a new "Brown horses (appearance)", and a new, mostly HotCat-oriented category "Brown horses (Seal brown)" would redirect to "Seal brown horses"... Pitke (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What about making it a disambig page where you can explain all that? Rocket000 (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Are category disambigs possible? Pitke (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Just tag it with {{Disambig}}. Rocket000 (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry, I didn't say why exactly I want the category Brown horses non-automatic. It's because it's easier to recat files ending up there than going through all the pictures in Seal brown horses when I do my regular maintenance checks. Pitke (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Rocket000 (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I use Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Seal_brown_horses for inspectiong some difficult categories. --Foroa (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Gee, thanks, it's a new toy for me :D Pitke (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, no!!

Those silly junk categories like 'black and white birds' . . . they're worthless, don't spam them into lots of species categories! Thanks! MPF (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's way better than to cat every black-and-white species file separately. As to if these cats are worth anything, I'd suggest you start a bigger discussion at the Village Pump. Pitke (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nisäkkäiden luokittelu

Hei! Olit kumonnut muutaman Animals-luokasta Mammals-luokkaan tekemäni siirron sillä perusteella, että Mammals-luokat on varattu villieläimille. Missä tällainen linjaus on tehty? Ainakaan juuriluokissa Category:Mammalia, Category:Mammals tai Category:Mammals by country ei tällaisesta mainita mitään. --Apalsola ^{t • c} 23:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Olen itse saanut sellaista palautetta joskus. Joku kumosi omat muokkaukseni sillä perusteella ilmeisimmin. Lisäksi esim. luokassa Category:Cattle ja Category:Horses on erillisiä lajeja tai alalajeja ja käsittääkseni kaikki kotieläimet ja lemmikit joilla on luokka arkinimellään Category:Animals by common named groups kuuluvat itsessään vastaaviin taksoluokkiin. Oikeasti en tiedä virallista linjausta, mutta minulla ei olisi kyllä mitään sitä vastaan, että jatkossa luokiteltaisiin "common name" -luokat (kuten Category:Black sheep) sekä vastaavaan taksoluokkaan että luokkaan Category:Black domestic animals. Mites tämä? Pitke (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Kun taas tapauksissa esim. Horses of Finland ei ole järkeä luokitella luokkaan Mammals of Finland (pikemminkin pitäisi olla domestic animals of Finland tms tai Animal husbandry in Finland) koska hevonen ei luonnonvaraisena siellä esiinny. Tämä systeemi on vakiintuneempi (arvelisin) kuin ylläolevan kaltaiset tapaukset, joten en lähtisi muuttamaan. Pitke (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Jos asiasta on vakiintunut käytäntö, niin ei varmaankaan ole tarpeellista muuttaa. (Ja en ole biologi, joten kovin syvällisesti en taksonomiaan ym. edes osaa ottaa kantaa.) Olisi kuitenkin hyvä, jos vallitsevat käytännöt olisi kirjattu johonkin, jotta ei tulisi niin helposti tahattomia virheitä. (Tämä ei tietenkään ole pelkästään eläinluokkien ongelma; ylipäätään Commonsissa ei aina tiedä, mitä johonkin luokkaan lopulta on tarkoitettu luokiteltavan.)

Menee jo vähän asian viereen, mutta ylipäätään maakohtaiset eläinluokat (esim. Category:Animals of Finland) ovat mielestäni siinä mielessä ongelmallisia, että luokan nimen voi ymmärtää myös niin, että luokkaan pitäisi luokitella kaikkien ko. maassa esiintyvien lajien luokat (ja jotkut ovat näin tehneetkin). Jonkin laajalle levinneen lajin kohdalla tämä johtaisi todella pahaan yliluokitteluun. Näkisin niin, että esim. Category:Animals of Finland -luokkaan ja sen alaluokkiin luokitellaan vain kuvia, jotka on otettu Suomessa. Poikkeuksena ovat sellaiset lajit, joita esiintyy vain yhdessä maassa (esim. saimaannorppa). Tällaisten lajien luokat voidaan minusta hyvin luokitella ko. maan maakohtaiseen luokkaan. Onko sinulla mielipidettä tästä? --Apalsola ^{t • c} 08:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

On mahdollista tehdä luokkia tyyliin "Ursus arctos in Finland". Ne sitten laji- ja maaluokkiin edelleen. 88.192.238.197 03:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 421-tv-Ahonkukka-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Breed ID

Hello Pitke, May I ask your expert opinion? Would you know which is the breed of those horses: File:Chevaux estive Pyrenees.jpg? Here is another view of the same herd. I've asked if they might be "pottoka" on fr:WP; I was answered that probably not, according to the French standard for the breed (furthermore the view wasn't taken in the Basque Country). Thank you in advance for your kind attention, --Myrabella (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I cannot claim to be any kind of expert when it comes to the numerous French horse breeds; I came up with two likely breeds, the Merens (which are more or less always black), and the Pottoka, which seems to be excluded from speculations. The horses in the two photos seem quite heavy. Sorry, but I don't think I can be of help here, the WPEQ project in en.wikipedia will probably be better prepared. Pitke (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you anyway! I should ask someone from es:WP, as these horses may be of a Spanish breed, according to my interlocutor on fr:WP... --Myrabella (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I may have an answer to Myrabella's question about the breed of the horses photographed. Their breed is most probably Breton - free-grazing herds of this French draught are kept in the Pyrenees for meat production.

File:"Biegsames" Shetlandpony.JPG

Hello, thanks for lots of excellent work. But I can´t understand your edit here. It was surely a male horse. Cordially, --4028mdk09 (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know, I think my brain was farting something like "he's so curled up you couldn't ever tell" but now that I think of it more thoroughly, it doesn't matter - it will still illustrate a stallion. Thanks for the reminder, I categorise pictures constantly and find myself sometimes thinking in really weird patterns. Pitke (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) --4028mdk09 (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Equus ferus caballus, American Miniature Horse.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question Could you please recommend a serious online reference giving the characteristics of that breed? The fr:WP article is a stub without many content, but it says that "Thumbelina" is an American miniature horse; however, we don't find the photos of Thumbelina in the Commons category Category:American Miniature Horse. On the contrary, the other image in that category illustrates for instance the fr:WP article on Falabella, which seems another breed. On :en:WP, there isn't an article precisely related to "American miniature horse", but simply to Miniature horse in general. --Myrabella (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Info Thumbelina appears to have dwarfism, so she should only illustrate herself or horse dwarfism. I've replaced her at a few articles. The fr article's cite for the breed info is dead so I can't check it, and it's hard to find information about her breed as apparently she was never registered, and Americans don't seem to think horses to be born as some breed, but becoming such with registration. I've tried to find her parent's info but haven't been able to get even names. It's also possible that because her family was miniature (maybe not even registered as anything), and because she is American, someone has made the assumption that she is an AMHA horse, American Miniature Horse, instead of an American miniature horse which she is, being miniature (by parentage) and American (by place of breeding). Also, it's common to use the breed name Falabella as a misnomer synonym for any mini horse. As for the breed standard, The official AMHA breed standard seems to encourage a mostly Arabian-type miniature (level topline, wide forehead, large eyes, straight or slightly concave profile, longish neck etc). Their "colors" section is seriously messed up. --Pitke (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment Thank you. According to AMHA breed standard, the size is a criterion of the most importance([1] ). How can we be sure that the nominated specimen doesn't measure more than 34 inches at the withers? I suggest to add an info about his AMHA registration in the description (I've found that ; note that the other image in the category brings this kind of info). I wonder if there are other true "American Miniature Horses" in the mother Category:Miniature horses, would you be kind enough to check? --Myrabella (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Info the link you posted features the horse's two registry numbers, meaning he's accepted, meaning he fulfils the size requirements. Also, there's a show picture of him that shows he's been in "National Top Ten", which gives more relation on the topic of his quality. I've been trying to categorise the mini horse pictures (as well as all the other horse pictures) as thoroughly as possible, but sadly enough many pictures lack any name or breed information. In the lack of central breed registries with open-access databases, even the full name of a horse might not be enough to investigate the matter better. --Pitke (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Description completed, please check. Note : the EXIF don't match with the date given in the description. +  Question : Is he roan or buckskin ? The image has the 2 categories, that seems excessive... --Myrabella (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Description is ok. And if you ask me, he does seem a roan buckskin, a colouration too rare (for now) to create a new category for. While buckskins can be very pale at times - even individuals that at other times of year could be golden tan - they seem to always retain some yellow in their heads, and their body, rather than a cold greyish white, is a slightly warm tone. "Charming's" body is a cool tone to my eyes. Moreover, clear soot patches at his underneck and head as well as spine and crest of neck should be "clearer", now they seem to be mixed with white. Especially the area around his jaws calls "roan" for me. His sire is a registered and recognisable bay roan too, so the genetic possibility for roan exists. If he really is buckskin roan, he is a bay, with homozygous Creme factor rendering him a buckskin (homozygous would be Category:Perlino), and the Rn factor adding the roan pattern of intermixed white hairs. Two colour categories for a horse is really not a big issue, this buddy could easily score "Chestnut horses", "Varnish roan", "Tobiano", and "Sabino horses"; this one on the other hand is genetically black, but Dun and Silver factors make him pale ashen with whitish mane, and the Tobiano pattern adds to the brew too. --Pitke (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for these detailed explanations. He seems less grey, more golden—let's say more plainly buckskin—on the photos of the breeder's website; the nominated image may have a color balance issue, but this point isn't of the highest importance for the scope. --Myrabella (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Support This image of an American Miniature Horse with pedigree and registration is the best picture available in the related category. The claim for a geotag exemption is acceptable IMO. Assuming that this image really depicts the stallion known under those references (see my last comment above about his color), it is the most valuable for the scope to me and fulfills all criteria. --Myrabella (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Horse breeds

Now I get what you meant. The categories are named after the breed not the horses of that breed. Category:Horse breeds is messy. What determines if something is capitalized or not? I'll do some renames if you can help me out. Rocket000 (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd love to see breed cats named in the style of "Comtois horse" pro "Comtois (horse)", as the latter style might make a person think it's about a horse individual. Capitalisations of "horse" and "pony" has vague logic about whether the word is part of the horse breed's official name (As in "American Quarter Horse" (cat seems misnamed btw)), or a clarifying prefix for the category name. It's somewhat of a mess. KWPN should logically be spelled out, but the abbrevation is far more known than the full name of the breed group... English articles should be checked with every rename in any case. Category:Caballo Castellano and Category:Cheval Castillonnais should be merged as Category:Castillonnais horse. Pitke (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I made the renames you suggested. For anything else just tag it with {{move}} and I'll do it. Rocket000 (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Pitke (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, the consensus at en.wikipedia's WikiProject Equine is to name the breeds with the following priority: "XYZ" (if no confusion with other things of that name) then "XYZ horse" (lower case) if there IS a possibility of confusion (notably with the warmblood breeds named after geographical regions, Westphalian, Hanoverian, Holsteiner, etc...), except, as in Pitke's example above, when "Horse" (capitalized) is part of the breed's formal name. We reserve "XYZ (horse)" for specific named animals or other non-breed horse articles that need disambiguation. So if the English entries here want to follow that, it would at least have the elegance of simplicity (we don't have this 100% consistent at WPEQ, there's only what, 300 or 400 breed article over there... :-P) But whatever you guys want to do. Just FYIMontanabw (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

File:News horse.jpg

Critically evaluate Flickr licenses

File:News horse.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. You may have preserved the information shown on Flickr correctly when transferring the image here, but the Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. Either the image was created by someone else, or it is a derivative of someone else's work. As stated in Commons:Licensing, only the copyright holder may issue a license, so the one shown on Flickr is invalid. Always remember to critically evaluate Flickr licenses. Photostreams with professional-looking photographs, album covers, posters, and images in a wide range of styles or quality taken by many different cameras often indicate that the Flickr uploader either does not understand or does not care about copyright matters. See Commons:Questionable Flickr images for a list of known bad Flickr users.

Trycatch (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Horse cat:s

Thanks for note. There doesn't appear to any logical policy stated anywhere as such. Do you want to take it to the Village Pump? (and only 2 reverts, actually) Man vyi (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Equus ferus caballus (Finnhorse).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Here we can see the sturdy conformation of a strongly muscled horse, which are features of the breed. One could maybe regret that the example is focused on a specialized trotting horse, as Finnhorse is a "multi-purpose horse" according to en:WP. I haven't made my mind yet for that reason. --Myrabella (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment Further down the article it's said that "the great majority of Finnhorses" today are trotters. Pitke (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Question Acknowledged. A last question: why do you deem this one more valuable for the scope than File:Helmi2.jpg? --Myrabella (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Info Helmi2.jpg shows the animal during the heat introduction, being held back and jogging. Helmi.jpg features a moment during a heat, with the horse at full speed, and facing the right way racing-wise. Pitke (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Thank you for the explanations. OK to me, all criteria met. --Myrabella (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahem and noogies

Hi Pitke, you might want to check out WHO the uploader of an image is before you mess with their edits-- I took the freakin' photo! LOL! Here's some more photos of the boy: One more of mine, clearly showing eyes and muzzle: File:MaclintockV.jpg and his owner's official version here with more photos: [2]. (noogies) Montanabw (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Dogs_by_function

Category discussion notification

Category:Dogs_by_function has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Benchill (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Horse rears

Hey Pitke, saw Category:Horse rears. Given that "rears" also refers to horses when then stand up on their hind legs, may I suggest changing the category name to something like "horse hindquarters"? Just a thought, I'm too lazy to do this myself...  :-D Montanabw (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

My dear Montee, I assure you that no person who has spent more than a little time on the Commons will think that "Horse rears" stands for a subjective and a predicative, as all "action" categories are either "gerund", "gerund subjective", or "subjective gerund". Thus "Horse rears" as in the action would be incredibly incorrectly named, and I would have already renamed it as "Category:Rearing horses". A standard Commons-user of course has no way of knowing this, but they again can ask in their heart whether rearing horses have enough to do with "horse anatomy", "animal tails" and "rear views of horses" as to be categorised under these themes. Thirdly, a standard Commons-goer hardly is aware of the depth of the subcategory tree of "Horses", and would be surprised to know categories for separate horse body parts even exist. However, if you insist that "Horse rears" be renamed, I would like to suggest these names: "Horse posteriors", "Horse hineys" or "North ends of horses going south". Your friend, Pitke. Pitke (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Rear" is also a little crude. Sort of like "ass." "North end going south" amuses me. "Hindquarters" is the term of art. I didn't feel like fixing it because it's a judgement call, but it's best to use the mainstream terms when they exist.  ;-) Montanabw (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy appies and stuff

I won't go in and change everything (yet), but there is really no such thing as a "near" leopard. Everything you have in that category would be classified as "leopard" by the ApHC. Maybe the Knabstruppers do something different, but I have never come across the "near leopard" thing, which is not a classification that's supported by literature (at least, I didn't see it in Sponenberg, the ApHC doesn't use it, Appy breeders don't use it, and none of the genetic research on PATN suggests it) Some horses might have a blanket and leopard spotting, but that is called a horse with a blanket and leopard spotting! LOL! I'm willing to argue about this a bit and look at sources, but it IS definitely non-standard terminology, and when people are looking for "leopard" horses, some of the nicest ones are lumped into this category where no one will find them  ;-) JMO. Montanabw (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Breed associations again. These are closely related to the guys who insist breeding palominos as a breed, remember? I gather I learnt years ago that "near-leopard" is a horse with an extensive spotted blanket and looks mostly white with spots, although having more or less solid colour in the head and the forelegs -- no idea whether the term is still used or anything. I have no trouble believing you in that some association would categorise a chestnut as black. Agh, the Lp thing still evades me... as far as I know there's:

• Spotting. Makes spots of "permafix" all over the horse's body. Can be itty bitty or large. Permafix spots are soluble by non-LpComplex spotting and grey, non-soluble by LPComplex washing agents.

All over spots are leopard, both horses would be classified as such. If the horse, like your second example, is mostly white and just a few spots, then it's a "fewspot" leopard. -- MTBW

Is shy and cannot be detected unless Varnish or Blanket comes out to play with him.

No clue without seeing the whole horse, but my guess is the horse is probably a varnish roan, a lot of them have spotting as well as roaning. -- MTBW

• Varnish. Makes the horse roan out and turn whiter a bit like the grey, but leaves colour on bony parts. Also does not turn the colour darker or steel grey in the process.

Basically, yes, except that they don't progressively lighten forever. They kind of roan out then stop, though getting a little lighter in the winter and darker in the summer. That pattern of dark hairs on the bony parts of the face is the real distinctive part that distinguishes varnish from anything else. --MTBW

• Blanket. Solid white pattern that grows from the horse's croup. Can be as small as a few white sprinkles on the butt, or extend to cover most of the horse.

Yes, though they now add several versions to distinguish a blanket that is mostly a blanket versus a spotty blanket. --MTBW

The appy stuff that keeps confusing me:

• Leopard. Permafix spots all over, otherwise the horse is white. Homozygous(?) horse is nearly white, might have a few spots with pigment here and there. Is this separate from Blanket or a form of Blanket? What decides if the spots get to be tiny or huge?

Yes, leopard and fewspot leopard. It is theorized that the homozygous horses are the ones with more white, but as they've only recently located the gene, it's going to take some time and more animals sampled to be sure. -- MTBW

• Snowflake. Little white spots all over the horse, not just on the butt. Is it Blanket gone nuts? Is it Varnish gone anal? Is it something else?

They don't know yet, but it's probably not varnish. I suspect that if they every figure out the theorized PATN ("pattern") gene or genes, this will most likely be linked to the same mechanism as blankets.

Locus PATN, with alleles "+", "Snowflake", "Blanket", and "Leopard blanket" (and maybe a bunch more) could be but *shrug* Pitke (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• What ever is going on in here?! Pitke (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question! I can't think of an underlying base coat or any dilution that creates two different shades like that. Leopard spotting, but definitely weird! Montanabw (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The terminology has actually changed even within the last 10 years as people have put more time into figuring out what seems to be genetically significant and what is not. What appears to be known is that there is an "Lp" mutation that creates the tendency to spot, along with the white sclera and striped hooves that go along with it. What makes the various patterns from leopard to varnish is not yet known, but proposed to be a separate "pattern" allele (called PATN until they figure out something better) that dictates the distribution of spotting. It appears that homozygous leopards have more white than heterozygous ones, and horses heterozygous for Lp are more likely to have blankets and such, but they'll need more research to be sure. As for breed associations, the ApHC has deliberately chosen to keep their head up their butt about the link between Lp and blindness, but other than that, they are quite dedicated to figuring out the genetics of spots because, of course, they want more horses with spots because they sell for more. FYI, for the latest, we are trying to get Appaloosa up to FA standard and did a bunch of updatingon the genetics stuff and created a table of images that corresponded to the stuff we found in Sponenberg's 2006 book, so yo may want to look over the sources cited there: [3] I haven't completely updated leopard complex, but did add in some of the new stuff. Montanabw (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Harness racing

Hello Pitke, Would you know how to say trot monté in English? Harness racing under saddle? Here is an image. Thanks and regards, --Myrabella (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I created Category:Monté racing to accommodate both trotters and pacers. A very nice pic btw. Pitke (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Myrabella (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of another fascinating and regionally unique horse sport... "monté' translates to "mounted", so "mounted trotting race" might be close, but we don't have them, so there is no standard English phrase as fall as I know. "harness" is not accurate, though, because the harness is a type of tack used to pull the sulkies. ;-) Montanabw (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but the en:WP article about Harness racing begins with: "Harness racing is a form of horse racing in which the horses race at a specific gait (a trot or a pace). They usually pull two-wheeled carts called sulkies, although racing under saddle (trot monté in French) is also conducted in Europe."... --Myrabella (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Fancy that monté riders are in Finland called "monté drivers" (the word used literally means someone who controls the horse by the reins, but it's never used for riders)... And because of cultural differences, we're prone to call horse racing (as in gallop racing) "competitive galloping", because horse racing for us is first and foremost "competitive driving" and "trotting". Jockeys get to be riders however. Pitke (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Make it 33

Hope it won't upset J.W. in any way ;) Since you've done horse categories recently, could you take a look at category:Horses by activity and category:Use of horses. Shouldn't they be blended together? Category:Plowing with horses is about using them, but it is also an activity - or not ?? NVO (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

...33? JW? Anyways, I created Horses by activity to help finding horses that are doing a specific thing, i.e. to gather all those "horses doing this and that" cats. I think a link to Use of horses would be constructive. Pitke (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Шоколад 'Тройка'

File:Шоколад 'Тройка'.jpg renamed: File:Chocolate Troika 09.jpg Арина (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi Pitke. I've closed your RfA as successful, and as such you are now an administrator here at Commons. Congrats! Let me know if you need any help, and best of luck in the future. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! Cheers, --4028mdk09 (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Super :D Thanks guys. I'll serve you well *bow* Pitke (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

New Admin Help

Is this useful?. I ask because it took me a couple of weeks to learn about the first and I just learned about the second today.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks very nice, thanks a bunch! Pitke (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pitke,
as you are an admin now, would you mind to add the admin-"bit" to the babel-box on your userpage or the template {{User admin}}? Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoah, had no idea those things existed. Pitke (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Gepunktete Stute mit Fohlen Bretten.JPG

Hallo Pitke, I suggest this mare being a Noriker. What do you think about? Cheers, --4028mdk09 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Good find. IMHO the mare shows typical type of the breed, and the foal has the typical huge Lp spots although his blanket pattern is something I haven't seen in Norikers before. Pitke (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. About the foal: I do not know if the stallion was a Noriker. Perhaps he maybe not. Cheers, --4028mdk09 (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Edited the Commons/Licensing/Finland/Works of art

Hey! I discovered that you added a section (or subsection) "Works of art" to the Finnish section of the Licensing page. [4] Because your text was unfortunately far too easy to read for most people and since the Finnish government has graciously provided us with a translation of the whole Act, I thought that copy-pasting from the translation would serve a dual purpose: to minimize the factual errors in the text and to spare us from the hideous work of trying to translate laws and statutes to another language ourselves. --Pxos (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, an official translation is ideal. I'm just happy we have one. Pitke (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Grey ?

Hello Pitke, May I ask you whether the horse one can see in that image is "dappled grey" or simply "grey" ? Kind regards, --Myrabella (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't dappled. Regular grey although the dispigmentation in the face is interesting. Pitke (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, I don't think it's a gray at all. I'm betting a roaned-out leopard complex. Look at the eye and the solid chestnut bits on the hind legs. Grays CAN get that depigmentation thing, but I'm betting there is something else going on there beyond simple graying. JMO. Montanabw (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. Pitke had kindly added a cat, maybe to be affined? I would ask a further layperson's question: is it similar to this other horse (classified as a 'Sabino horse')? --Myrabella (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, except that there you have another mystery "WTF is THAT?" horse with multiple color pattern stuff going on, (grin) looks like sabino overlaying roan, but the light color also makes a case for gray, except that the head darker than the body argues for roan. Montanabw (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh god of categories

Been out and about with the camera, but I suck at categorizing images in commons. Can you peek at what I've contributed in July and see if I have everything in the best places? I was particularly flummoxed with how to narrow down the mountain ranges categories, as nothing handy popped up in the suggestion box. Every image was taken somewhere in Montana. Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

… breeds originating in …

Hi Pitke, I noted that you moved Category:Cattle breeds of Finland (I wasn't aware of Category:Breeds by country and subcategories when I created it) to Category:Cattle breeds originating in Finland. Good idea! This makes the "difference between country and country" (photo location vs. general origin) even more clear, and I guess I can use this sort of naming ("originating in") in other cases too :-) --:bdk: 13:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear :) Pitke (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Equus ferus caballus (Shetland pony).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Previous reviews

•  Support This is a rich scope but few images are well-described, geocoded and of good quality. I agree with the nominator. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Art cats?

Hi Pitke, you are the guru of commons categories, could you peek at the stuff I uploaded at Charles Marion Russell and related files to see if I put them in all the proper cats? Or, to be more specific, I know I could add more, but don't know them well enough to do so in an efficient manner. Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll chip away during the next few days. Pitke (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)