User talk:White Arabian Filly/Archive February 2017

Hey, would you consider making any comment?[edit]

Hey, WAF,

I'm trying to get the Bull Riding Hall of Fame to be part of this notability page. Of course, an editor rejected it saying she wants consensus. Could you look and see if you can add anything? Don't feel obligated, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Rodeo_-_Bull_Riding_Hall_of_Fame_notability_in_question

Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I support it. I was one of the ones who pressed for more inclusion of the championship show horses... ☺ White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch. Yes, so you understand. Great comment! Also, I'm looking at Bushwacker right now, and I think I've gotten the granddam and grandsire confused all along. Whose are they supposed to be for horses and bulls? The sire's parents, right? Not the dam's parents.. I think I've been mixing it up and I might have to fix a few bull topics... appreciate your help. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about it some more. The grandsire is the sire's father and the granddam is the dam's dam, right? lol dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, although sources vary. In some horse things they list the sire's sire as grandsire and dam's sire as damsire, then list both dams as granddam... The horse pedigrees can be a nightmare especially if it's one of those European Warmbloods with the impossible French and German names. 😆 White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 00:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in bucking bulls they have not been tracking pedigree long, especially as compared to horses. The sources are very hard to track. I guess I will just have to do the best with what I have and as i go I will learn more about it and maybe be find better sources. Thanks for your thoughts on it, though! :) dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Treeing Walker Coonhounds[edit]

The World Atlas of Dogs backs up the CKC weight of this breed. Both the AKC and UKC do not list the estimated weight, rather they have "weight in proportion to height". Having worked with this breed, the 35lb listing you keep reverting back to is way too small. The CKC is, unless proven otherwise, a valid and credible source that I fact checked and cross referenced with the World Atlas of Dogs and other registries. The link you keep reverting to is broken, and the weight is not listed by any registry or website to be anything below 45lbs. I have provided links and citations, and your claim (with out proof) that those citations are "invalid" seems to be just opinion. If you can prove otherwise then we will leave it at that. I'm just trying to get the proper weight listed for this breed. Thank you OEMills (talk) OEMIlls —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OEMills, the CKC (Continental, that is, not Canadian) is not a reliable registry. Looking at pictures of CKC registered dogs, most of the ones purported to be purebred appear to be crosses. I wouldn't think too much of any book that cited them as a source because of that, and in my experience the "breeds of the world" books tend to have bad information on the more obscure breeds in any case. They probably figure why bother, when very few people keep these dogs as pets anyway... On the dead link, I can try to run the Wayback machine on it, which will provide a permanent link to the info cited. Or I can try to find either the AKC PDF of the breed standard or a copy of their Dog Book recent enough to have the breed in there. I don't think 35 lbs is too small for a female Treeing Walker in hunting shape--the modern hunting dogs are bred to be lighter because they want them fast for the competitive hunts. They don't have the heavy build a Bloodhound does, and most of the ones I've seen were somewhere around 40-55 lbs, with 60 as the max (They might be bigger if bred specifically for conformation showing, but most of the ones I've seen were used to hunt). I think one weighing 70 lbs would be either overweight or far bigger than they're supposed to be. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The CKC was not sighted as a source in the World Atlas, it appears however to be where the CKC gets its breed standards, which match very closely (if not completely) with AKC and UKC. Your "reason" for the CKC to be counted as "not valid" seems to be more anecdotal than anything. The AKC and UKC breed standards do not list a weight. My edits have been cited, while yours have been anecdotal. I'll gladly step aside if you can provide sources that back your claims, otherwise this information that I have added should be left alone until then. OEMills (talk) OEMills —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The weight information is covered by the dead link. If that isn't alright, we can just skip listing the weight and say it's in proportion to the height like the AKC and UKC do--they are probably the most reliable sources where this breed of dog is concerned and are already cited in the article. And I'm not alone in saying the CKC is unreliable; most dog books and magazines say their registrations don't count for much because they don't fact-check or require pedigree to prove the dog is what the owner says it is. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 00:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Hey What was the review you had on me ?? Can I know About it ??? Sawongam (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SawOnGam. I marked your userpage as patrolled. That just means that I looked it over and didn't see anything wrong with it. I can do that because I have the page patroller right, which is given to people who are willing to look at new pages and make sure they're not copyright violations or personal attacks or something else unallowed. It's mainly for use on articles, but can be used for userpages too. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks broo

Filly  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SawOnGam (talk • contribs) 11:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you put links inside edit summaries?[edit]

I've been trying to put links to MOS pages like MOS:DUPLINK and MOS:CITEVAR in edit summaries on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bodacious_(bull)&action=history but they just come out as hard text. For example, I pasted MOS:DUPLINK into the edit summary box. Obviously, that's not the way to do it...lol montanabw is super busy right now, so can you help? dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using double brackets in the summary like in article links, it should work. As a test I made an edit in my sandbox and in the summary linked to NPP just like this [[Wikipedia:NPP]] and it appeared as a blue link in the edit summary when I looked at it. It looks like you didn't put Wikipedia or WP in front of MOS, so that's probably what went wrong. All policy pages have to have that prefix, so you'd write it like [[Wikipedia:MoS#DUPLINK]]. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a couple tests on my User Page. The last test I tried was Wikipedia:MOS#DUPLINK which works but it only takes you to the top of that page, and not to duplink. It shows #duplink in the URL, so its strange why it doesn't move the position down the page to that bookmark. You can see it yourself on my User Page History. Maybe I goofed up, lol. Thanks for the info.! :) dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I don't know why that would happen. Using the hashtag/number sign is supposed to link directly to the section within the article and take you there when you click on it. At least it does take you to the page. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was going to write you again and got distracted until I saw a ping from you just now. I found all these examples that work right on one of my articles (well an article I rewrote most of) but when I do what they did it doesn't work...lol)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_Yellow_Jacket&offset=20161107193535&action=history dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, which part isn't wroking? The link's leading me to the whole psge history.... White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the history was to show a whole bunch of examples of edit summaries where shortcuts to wikipages are working. But when I try their examples, they don't work for me. For example, an editor used WP.CHECKWIKI in an edit summary. And other editors used WP:DATELINK, WP:YEARLINK. And then for the manual of style links, I saw used MOS:DATEFORMAT and MOS:UNLINKYEARS. But these don't work for me. So, that was the point of the the LYJ URL. Sorry I wasn't clearer. I tried putting WP.CHECKWIKI and MOS.DATEFORMAT in my User Page edit summary just like they were used in LYJ's page. They work in LYJ's page but not in mine. So, there must be more to it. Appreciate your help. I'll try to see if I can find anything on this in WP help. dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Sorry I didn't realize what the problem was. I think in some cases the editors linking to policies in the summaries might be using AWB or some other kind of semiautomatic editing script. In that case they probably have to simply choose a prewritten summary and click save. It might be that the links are specifically designed for those scripts. I'm not really sure because I've never used those scripts or tools, but I've seen those kinds of summaries often enough to make me wonder if that isn't it.White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if that is what's happening, it would make total sense. I have seen Brianhe use this type of shortcut. On Bushwacker's page, he used WP.OBVIOUS. I'll ask him on his page how he did it. Once I found out, I'll come back and let you know, too. Thanks again. Didn't think it would be this much work, lol. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brianhe (talk · contribs)I've been trying to figure out (regarding the above conversation) how to use WP shortcuts in edit summaries. I noticed you used WP.OBVIOUS in Bushwacker, but when I tried it on my User Page (and several others), they are just hard text. Can you spill the secret :) ? please... dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can just put brackets around to make wikilinks, like this: WP:LINK.

By the way the prefix WP (identical to prefix Wikipedia) is an example of the mysterious Wikipedia concept of a "namespace". You have already discovered some of it, because we are on a user talk page (User talk:), one of the common namespaces. Articles have no prefix, user pages start with prefix User:, help pages start with Help:, and so forth. More info at Wikipedia:Namespace. You can hide the namespace in a link by "piping", or even change the text displayed completely, but that is a relatively advanced technique. Brianhe (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brianhe (talk · contribs)Thanks for your help. I see what you did with WP:LINK need to use a colon not a period plus the brackets. And I also made this one work MOS:DUPLINK I tested these on my User Page edit summary to make sure they worked in the edit summary and they do. So thanks for the great instructions and wikilinks. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's up![edit]

I've got it live: Margaret Cabell Self. Feel free to make more improvements. I want to put it up for DYK, any ideas for a good hook? Montanabw^(talk) 05:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will make improvements if I get a chance or come across anything good, been a little busy in real life lately. (It's 70 degrees here, so all the springtime stuff is starting early--it's a semitropical climate anyway.) Maybe a hook could be, "Dyk that though Margaret Cabell Self was best known as a horsewoman, chickens roamed her kitchen?" Something about the chickens because it's so unusual and kinda funny too. 🐓🐔 White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]