Category talk:Horse tack and equipment

What is and what is not horse tack, what method do you use to decide what goes in this category?

Since January 2nd 2008 Horseshoes had been listed in the horse tack category, suddenly an editor who had edited this category for quite some time decided that Horseshoes is not horse tack after all and removed it, members of the WikiProject Equine have also edited the same category with out realizing that Horseshoes was in the wrong category, which brings into question several other suspect articles that are in Category:Horse tack such as Voss v. Fisher, is this horse tack, is a Feedbag horse tack, how about Stable bandage, is this really horse tack, should there be a category for horse related equipment that is not actually horse tack, maybe its time to scrutinize ALL of the articles and re-categorize the articles that really are not horse tack into some other category so that people who use Wikipedia do not get false information, just a thought.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Books on horse tack and equipment abound. You can easily purchase one. As for feedbags, bandages, etc., you make a valid point that there is a place for some rethinking of the horse tack categories, as the line between "tack" (saddles, bridles, harnesses, training gear and the things attached to the same) and equipment (protective boots, stable gear, etc.) is a fine and often fuzzy one and you can actually find different books with different definitions. But running around and unilaterally changing things is not the way to fix it, neither is arguing with me and personalizing the discussion. Take it to WikiProject Equine and let the whole group discuss the issue. Montanabw^(talk) 21:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• So what book did you refer to when you decided that horseshoes were no longer considered to be horse tack? Were are your discussions with WikiProject Equine on whether horseshoes are or are no horse tack and it was YOU that UNILATERALLY decided that horseshoes were no longer considered to be horse tack without any discussion not me, I did not remove ANY items from the horse tack category, I just made some new sub categories. If you remove one non horse tack item then remove all non horse tack items. Start a new category such as "Horse related equipment" etc and put protective equipment, horseshoes, horse tack etc in the new category before I do it. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

There IS an argument to rename the horse tack category to "horse equipment" which, though less precise, is possibly more suitable for all the items in it and avoids time-wasting discussions like this one. If "horse equipment" works for you, we probably could jointly nominate it, though I'd first like to take it to WPEQ to see if others are OK with that. If we, who normally disagree, can agree on SOMETHING, it would therefore be apt to be relatively uncontroversial. That said, have you ever actually ridden a horse? Montanabw^(talk) 16:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea and it would help less informed readers find articles, the alternative would be to create a category called "Horse equipment" and place Category:Horse tack in it along with other non horse tack articles and categories that are horse equipment like Horseshoes, Mounting block, Category:Horse protective equipment etc, that way a person would only have to look in one category to find all horse related equipment and horse tack could remain a category with only actual horse tack articles in it so that readers would not have any doubt as to what is and is not horse tack, I definitely support making it easier to find related articles.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't quite solve the problem of what is and is not horse tack (halters, leg bandages, etc...) but maybe renaming horse tack to horse equipment would skirt the whole debate. Montanabw^(talk) 23:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Either way would work, nominate a method and I will support it, I am just interested in bring all the horse related equipment into one category so all the related articles will be easier to find.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Equine#Tacky_question. We shall see if anyone else has useful thoughts. Montanabw^(talk) 17:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of Template:Catdiffuse

I have removed Template:Catdiffuse from this category several times, as has User:Marcocapelle. Each time it has been replaced by User:Montanabw.

The background is that the template was added to the category by Monanabw shortly after the close of this CFD. One result of the CFD was that some articles that were previously categorized in the subcategory Category:Whips (horse) were upmerged to this category.

Therefore, the CFD result suggests that the category should not be fully diffused to subcategories, or at least that some of the previous attempts at diffusion do not have consensus. Adding a template (shortly after the discussion closes) which suggests that the category should be diffused where possible at least has the appearance of attempting to circumvent the result of the CFD, or at least a suggestion that it should be circumvented in the future. The suggestion is made stronger by the fact that the user in question, Montanabw, strongly opposed the result of the CFD.

We shouldn't need to have a formal CFD to discuss the proper use of Template:Catdiffuse on a category, but we also don't need an edit war over the issue. So if we can't reach a consensus agreement on it here, in this forum which is by its nature going to be small, I'm willing to seek some further input on the issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The CfD did not discuss the diffusion template, it only discussed the equestrian whips category, which apparently held that six articles was too few for their own category (in spite of hundreds of smaller categories elsewhere). So, no, I see no "suggestion"-- If you have a policy -- or even a guideline -- on catdiffuse, do point to it; as I read the template itself, it suggests that most articles be diffused, but does not mandate the category be empty. Inevitably, any fully diffused category will have some "strays" -- main articles, etc. Montanabw^(talk) 23:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The timing and related outrage over the decision just makes it appear obvious what was going on. The policy that applies is WP:CONS—like anything, there should be a consensus to add a template. So far there are two editors who have questioned it, so I think we need further input. I don't feel that it's that big of a deal but if the presence of the template is used to suggest that the category that was deleted needs to be re-created, then it does become a problem, and that's what should be avoided. It's not difficult to interpret your actions as possibly laying the groundwork for that argument. (I'm not saying that you subjectively had this intent—I'm just saying that it's easy for it to be interpreted that way. And one who reads the related DRV might be tempted to think that it is your strategy when it is seen that you wrote, "This silly little drama has now cluttered up what was supposed to be a fully-diffusing category.") Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, no one had cared about this category at all when the diffusion template was placed here and I was trying to clean up some disorganized, messy categories. The whip category issue came about after -- and you linked to the copyright policy, not the consensus one. In short, the process is WP:BB, then WP:BRD and then endless jawing about it to reach a consensus. My point is that I see no guidelines or policies on diffusing categories that you have provided. If it matters this much to you, fine, I am not going to die on the hill of a diffusion template, but you have not provided any evidence for your "rule" that catdiffuse mandates all (as opposed to most) articles be diffused, which appears to be your objection to it. And I fail to see what your problem is with diffusing this category as much as possible. Montanabw^(talk) 06:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I have not posited that it is a "rule", as you put it. I don't believe that WP really even has "rules" as such, so it's unlikely I would suggest that this is one. I am suggesting what I think makes sense in this particular context given the CFD result. I'm not proposing or claiming a blanket rule that applies in all situations. As I stated, my concern is that it at least appears that you might be laying the groundwork to get around a CFD result that you vehemently disagreed with. I don't think it's fair to say that "no one cared" about a category—you can't read minds, and you don't know what users cared about at a point in the past. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Please remember AGF. I diffused the category before that CfD. And I've been on here for 10 years, periodically tweaking and refining the equine categories. I can categorically say (pun intended) that this is probably the first time anyone outside the equine project has expressed the least amount of interest in these categories beyond minor wikignoming. So yes, I have no evidence that anyone cared. And I am still SMH at the CfD, particularly the person who said "whips are used on other animals besides horses"? (smh, smh) The smallcat argument one person made there might fly except that I can find dozens of smallcats in fully diffused parent categories, so the logic was inconsistent. I'm not going to die on this hill and edit war about it, but you are taking the CfD decision far beyond the actual decision. I will live with the CfD because I cannot at present overturn the "consensus" and I'm tired of that particular WP:STICK (another pun intended). But I don't see any reason not to generally encourage diffusion of this parent category; you point to no guideline or policy that says otherwise, not even consensus from somewhere else. Montanabw^(talk) 05:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I have been AGFing, which is why above (several times) I have emphasised what your actions could appear to others. As I wrote above, I'm not saying that you subjectively had this intent—I'm just saying that it's easy for it to be interpreted that way. I've stated this above as well, but I think that the CFD results suggest by necessary implication that full diffusion of the category is at least presently not needed or not desirable. While it's true that the template you added does not mandate full diffusion, if the template is encouraging diffusion, there is a chance that it will encourage diffusion in a way that would prompt re-creation of a category for horse whips. That's the crux of the concern. I'm fine if you want to keep the diffusion tag on the category, as long as it's done with an understanding of the limitations of what it actually means in this context. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

"Could appear to others"? I doubt it, but I also DGAF; people will think what they think and if they are trying to read my mind, they will usually be wrong (sigh). I'm good with your solution of putting the template back in and no, I won't recreate the horse whips category for now, at least not until there are more articles out there that justify a category, and writing them is not on my A-list at the moment; other fish to fry... But I still think the CfD outcome was dumb. Montanabw^(talk) 07:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)