![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Could someone please explain this phrase from the 1st paragraph, "or whose get could race a mile in standard time or better"? I'm guessing that 'get' means 'offspring'.... Can you rephrase this sentence to be intelligible to those not familiar with horse breeding? ike9898 13:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'll give it a try:
Could someone please explain this phrase from the 1st paragraph, "or whose get could race a mile in standard time or better"? I'm guessing that 'get' means 'offspring'.... Can you rephrase this sentence to be intelligible to those not familiar with horse breeding? ike9898 13:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
"Standardbred" horses are so called because in the early years of the Trotting Registry, the standardbred stud book established in the United States in 1879 by the National Association of Trotting Horse Breeders, only those horses who could race a mile in a standard time or better, or whose offspring could race a mile in standard time or better, were entered in the book.
I researched this further. Note that before being classified as a "standardbred" horse, these original horses had a Sire (father) and Dam (mother) that were "throughbred" horses (see Messenger).
What is standard time ? ( Gnevin 19:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC))
Is there a way to tell that the horse pulling the Amish buggy is a Standardbred? Owning horses of a racing breed seems very un-Amish to me, and I'm told that in the Amish community in Geauga Co., Ohio (the only one I have any connection to), the most popular breed for buggies is the Haflinger, which is known for hardiness and draft use as well as a smooth gait. — JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Instead of reverting and removing the information that I added to this article, my information could have been added to. The section that I added about notable breeders that included Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. is relevant to this article. If there was a concern that this section or information should not be included simply because he was not an originator of the breed, then such a section can be added to the article about that, as well as including the section I added about notable breeders. Then, that section can be added to, as well. Then, an appearance of "undue weight" would not be reflected. This is an issue that could be presented here on the talk page prior to just deleting the information. How is one supposed to build up an article if her/his attempts are deleted? I go through this too much on Wikipedia where editors simply take out information, without trying to add to or improve it. It is continually frustrating and disappointing when one's work is simply deleted without any attempts at adding to or improving it. Daniellagreen ( talk) 18:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Instead of reverting and removing the information that I added to this article, why not add to it. If you have a concern that this notable man, Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. should not be included simply because he was not an originator of the breed, then a section can be added to the article about that, as well as including notable breeders. I go through this too much on Wikipedia where editors simply take out information, without trying to add to or improve it. It is continually frustrating and disappointing. Typically, then male editors remove information that the women editors have added. This is another of those situations. Daniellagreen ( talk) 18:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess you are to be commended that you want to try, but as for Gernett, clearly you are working on a lot of articles about that family, which is fine, but here, there is no context as to why this person did anything for the breed, and no other breeders are listed since 1849, so if you cannot see your addition was at best undue weight and at worst some vague advertising for a program still in existence, then I've done all I can to explain it to you. I have no interest in wasting bandwidth on someone who doesn't want to learn. Montanabw (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This is for the record that Montanabw has threatened to report me for "harassment" regarding my commentary to her on this article. It is unfortunate that when people don't get their way and/or are unable to cope with what they don't want to hear that they find it necessary to use intimidation, get ugly, and make threats. This is definitely a poor reflection on Wikipedia and what it should be all about. Daniellagreen ( talk) 22:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This is to inform that I have filed with dispute resolution regarding this matter in regard to User:Montanabw. Daniellagreen ( talk) 00:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Standardbred. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Could someone please explain this phrase from the 1st paragraph, "or whose get could race a mile in standard time or better"? I'm guessing that 'get' means 'offspring'.... Can you rephrase this sentence to be intelligible to those not familiar with horse breeding? ike9898 13:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'll give it a try:
Could someone please explain this phrase from the 1st paragraph, "or whose get could race a mile in standard time or better"? I'm guessing that 'get' means 'offspring'.... Can you rephrase this sentence to be intelligible to those not familiar with horse breeding? ike9898 13:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
"Standardbred" horses are so called because in the early years of the Trotting Registry, the standardbred stud book established in the United States in 1879 by the National Association of Trotting Horse Breeders, only those horses who could race a mile in a standard time or better, or whose offspring could race a mile in standard time or better, were entered in the book.
I researched this further. Note that before being classified as a "standardbred" horse, these original horses had a Sire (father) and Dam (mother) that were "throughbred" horses (see Messenger).
What is standard time ? ( Gnevin 19:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC))
Is there a way to tell that the horse pulling the Amish buggy is a Standardbred? Owning horses of a racing breed seems very un-Amish to me, and I'm told that in the Amish community in Geauga Co., Ohio (the only one I have any connection to), the most popular breed for buggies is the Haflinger, which is known for hardiness and draft use as well as a smooth gait. — JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Instead of reverting and removing the information that I added to this article, my information could have been added to. The section that I added about notable breeders that included Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. is relevant to this article. If there was a concern that this section or information should not be included simply because he was not an originator of the breed, then such a section can be added to the article about that, as well as including the section I added about notable breeders. Then, that section can be added to, as well. Then, an appearance of "undue weight" would not be reflected. This is an issue that could be presented here on the talk page prior to just deleting the information. How is one supposed to build up an article if her/his attempts are deleted? I go through this too much on Wikipedia where editors simply take out information, without trying to add to or improve it. It is continually frustrating and disappointing when one's work is simply deleted without any attempts at adding to or improving it. Daniellagreen ( talk) 18:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Instead of reverting and removing the information that I added to this article, why not add to it. If you have a concern that this notable man, Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. should not be included simply because he was not an originator of the breed, then a section can be added to the article about that, as well as including notable breeders. I go through this too much on Wikipedia where editors simply take out information, without trying to add to or improve it. It is continually frustrating and disappointing. Typically, then male editors remove information that the women editors have added. This is another of those situations. Daniellagreen ( talk) 18:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess you are to be commended that you want to try, but as for Gernett, clearly you are working on a lot of articles about that family, which is fine, but here, there is no context as to why this person did anything for the breed, and no other breeders are listed since 1849, so if you cannot see your addition was at best undue weight and at worst some vague advertising for a program still in existence, then I've done all I can to explain it to you. I have no interest in wasting bandwidth on someone who doesn't want to learn. Montanabw (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This is for the record that Montanabw has threatened to report me for "harassment" regarding my commentary to her on this article. It is unfortunate that when people don't get their way and/or are unable to cope with what they don't want to hear that they find it necessary to use intimidation, get ugly, and make threats. This is definitely a poor reflection on Wikipedia and what it should be all about. Daniellagreen ( talk) 22:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This is to inform that I have filed with dispute resolution regarding this matter in regard to User:Montanabw. Daniellagreen ( talk) 00:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Standardbred. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)