---

Hi. I recently changed "Mustang" to "mustang" throughout this article. An editor who I have the very highest respect for and I certainly will not fall out with over this has reverted my edit. I am opening up the discussion as to whether "mustang" should have an uppercase M or not. If this has been discussed before, please could you indicate where.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see it being capitalized/capitalised both ways. I'm slightly inclined to making it lower case/lowercase because, unlike a Clydesdale for example, it's not a breed. Is there some official organization governing horse designations? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And "Clydsedale" is a proper name for an area in Scotland - therefore I have no problem with that having a capital "C". Is there a reason for mustang horses having an uppercase "M"?__DrChrissy (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess people tend to think of them as a horse breed, like the Morgan horse or Appaloosa, which are capitalized (in their articles at least; I'm not a horse person). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another use of the name is lowercase Mustang (military officer). Mlpearc (open channel) 02:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned HERE consensus is to let it be until a full RfC happens on the capitalization or not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for raising the issue is a general WP MOS found here [1] which I have copied below. Is mustang exempt from this?

Common names Lower-case initial letters are used for each part of the common (vernacular) names of species, genera, families and all other taxonomic levels (bacteria, zebra, bottlenose dolphin, mountain maple, bald eagle), except where they contain a proper name (Przewalski's horse, Amur tiger, Roosevelt elk), or when such a name starts a sentence (Black bears eat white suckers and blueberries).

As of May 2014, wikiprojects for some groups of organisms are in the process of converting to sentence case where title case was previously used. Some articles may not have been changed yet (this may still be true of bird articles, a few groups of insect articles and some plant ones, as well as a few on amphibians and reptiles).

Names of groups or types The common name of a group of species or type of organism is always written in lower case (except where a proper name occurs): New World monkeys, slime molds, rove beetles, great apes, mountain dogs, Van cats This also applies to an individual creature of indeterminate species.

__DrChrissy (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think mustang is either a species or a breed, so neither of those is directly applicable; the lowercase for groups of types does seem more fitting. But since it's overwhelmingly lowercase in sources, there should be no question. Furthermore, the cited sources mostly use lowercase, and it's hard to find any book that uses uppercase. Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, style guides sometimes make an explicit example of it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the issue hinges on the point already raised twice above: is this a breed? Breed names are invariably capitalised here, as in almost all reliable sources. The issue is slightly complicated by the fact that the organisation responsible for them, the BLM, doesn't use the term "mustang". Thus the statement in the lead that "the United States Congress recognized Mustangs ..." is not in any way supported by the source cited, the The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, which does not mention mustangs at all.

The USDA Agricultural Research Service reports two breeds to DAD-IS, the Spanish Mustang and the Wild Mustang. There seem to be various other, more specific, mustang populations, including the Cerbat Mountain Mustang, Kiger Mustang, Pryor Mountain Mustang, Sulphur Springs Mustang and so on, which would suggest that the mustang is not a breed but a group of breeds like, say, fat-tailed sheep, and would thus not be capitalised here according to our customary usage.

Sources are mixed: Monty Roberts uses lower case throughout Shy Boy; Edwards (pp. 216–17) lists it as a breed and uses upper case, as does Dutson; Hendricks can't make up her mind, even within one paragraph; Lynghaug uses uc when the word is part of a breed name, lc when it stands alone. All in all, that seems to be the best solution, and would have my vote if there were ever an RfC. Then perhaps some effort could be put into improving the article instead of fiddling about with trivial style issues? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you did with your recent edit? And anyone is welcome to improve the article... Omnedon (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat what I have already stated above. My question arises from the MOS here [2] which states "The common name of a group of species or type of organism is always written in lower case". It is totally irrelevant whether the mustang is a recognised breed or not, it is a "type of organism" and therefore should be lowercase. If this is to be ignored, then there is simply no point in having the MOS.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DrChrissy Mlpearc (open channel) 15:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to capitalized when used as a breed name, as Spanish Mustang and Wild Mustang. But more often wild mustang is used generically (see n-grams, so care is needed. Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your complaint "Thus the statement in the lead that 'the United States Congress recognized Mustangs ...' is not in any way supported by the source cited" is something I had already fixed by quoting the source more accurately; maybe it was in the same edit you reverted even though you seem to agree with it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The statute ways "wild horse" but it means Mustangs - it was written in 1971, so the language is archaic- just like our US statutes say "Indian" and not "Native American." I can provide sources, but it's complicated to explain, as legalese often is. But I can live with the direct quote. Montanabw^(talk) 06:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; it certainly does not mean a species of wild horse; there are none in North America, only in Asia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion – Someone should add a section about breeds, where it can be mentioned that some authors capitalized Mustang as a breed name, but that there are other more accepted breed names for various subtypes, or however you call them. Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Mustang is the breed, the other stuff are assorted substrains. Montanabw^(talk) 06:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Substrain" isn't a word, and there's no source suggesting such a thing about these horses. Mustangs (lower-case) are several feral populations of horses, from which some actual breeds (selectively-bred, controlled, pedigreed populations) have been intentionally and recently derived, and which have their own breed names, like Kiger Horse or Kiger Mesteño depending on breed registry. Mustangs themselves are not a breed, even if some horse breed encyclopedias list them as if they were. Most cat encyclopedias also list "moggies" (i.e. "mongrel", non-purebred domestic shorthair cats) as if they were a breed, but they are not either. Similarly, the The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards has entries on a wide variety of vaguely billiards-related games, like bagatelle and even bowling and golf (very, very vaguely related) but this doesn't make them formally varieties of billiards per se, but simply of interest to the same reader base (or at least the same author). Don't confuse a desire by some publication's editors (including this one) to provide information about domestic animal populations that aren't really breeds per se in the same format as articles on breeds, with reliable sourcing that a population provably constitutes an actual breed under any useful definition or sense of that word. It's a silly notion, like declaring the feral cats that infest my neighborhood, and which have a somewhat limited gene pool, to be a "breed".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'm late to this party, but yes, the capitalization of breeds in general and Mustangs/Brumbies/ whatever in particular is a long debated issue, I've been here eight years, it's one of those things that's hard to track down which page and in which archive, but it's been a thing that's happened over and over. Consensus was reached at WikiProject Equine to capitalize all breed names as proper nouns because, for one thing, it ended the constant drama of why one breed was capitalized and another not. But as for the "breed" question, the Mustang is not a species or subspecies, it is a landrace breed with multiple strains (the Pryors, Sulphurs, Kigers, etc., are regionally distinct populations. They aren't separate breeds. (The USA DAD-IS list is, by the way, terrible - it includes stuff that is not a breed and excludes a lot of things that are...) There is no such thing as a "Wild Mustang" - that's just a colloquialism - Mustangs are not wild horses, they are feral horses) Montanabw^(talk) 06:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• To clarify: Mustangs are not a separate species of horse. They are a feral animal, a landrace breed if you will, and as such are subject to US Federal law protection. All "breeds" are simply preservation breeding in domestication of certain strains captured from the "wild" and the descendants thereof - where people have given them names and numbers. I think that pretty much any Mustang from the BLM can get "registered" with one of these. Montanabw^(talk) 06:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for finally conceding that it's a landrace. >;-) Legal protection of a population has nothing to do with whether something is a "breed" or not, much less a capitalised proper noun. Numerous species and subspecies are legally protected, and we do not capitalize any of them here (except where they contain a proper name, like "Florida" in Florida panther). The concepts are unrelated.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the consensus is to follow MOS:CAPS and sources. A long-forgotten agreement to defer fixing the case problem, as I said in my edit summary on reverting your revert, is not a reason to not fix it now. Sources do not support treating mustang as a breed name in general; in any particular use where it specifically means a breed, of course, it could be capitalized to so indicate. Dicklyon (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And consensus is evolving. I was offline for several days. MOSCAPS also changes a whole bunch, and anyway, breeds are not species. It is not "an agreement to defer fixing the case problem," it is a consensus that breed names are proper nouns. There is mixed opinion out in the real world, but as a rule, breed names are capitalized. Montanabw^(talk) 06:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please indicate a page at a higher level than a breed article where consensus has been reached that a breed should be capitalised.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montana, you need open up a bit to the possbility that you're bucking standard WP style here. Is there any other place where we declare something a breed and capitalize it when 90% of sources use lowercase? Seems like an open and shut case. If there's a discussion about this that we need to be informed by, please link it; otherwise it seems like just you. Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Animals are not proper nouns; groups of animals are not proper nouns. This should absolutely not be capitalized. Red Slash 00:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the widespread approval of lowercase, I've reverted Montanabw's capitalization again. Dicklyon (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see widespread approval here. I reverted it back to longstanding consensus unless an Rfc that specifically deals with the spelling decides otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many people's time should we waste? The hullabaloo over bird capitalization took years before inevitably reflecting common usage. Sure, file an RfC if you so desire, but I want everyone's time back after consensus determines once again that reliable sources are what we should use when deciding how to write the encyclopedia. Red Slash 04:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Count me as agreeing with that general approval, too. But we don't need to count votes; we have a site-wide guideline on capitalisation, MOS:CAPS, and another on life forms, MOS:LIFE, both of which tell us not to capitalise this. There is zero burden of proof on anyone to show some new consensus against capitalising this particular instance; it's the other way around.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck, what is this "longstanding consensus" of which you speak? Did horse people come to some agreement about ignoring the MOS? Where can we find this discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I look back to this article in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, etc... Mustang is capitalized. That my friend is longstanding consensus at wikipedia. To up and change it based on a few editors in this conversation seems wrong. I see it capitalized in many sources and non-capitalized in many sources. But when it's been a certain way for 8 years I think it's only fair not to simply bludgeon through a change. I know wikipedia does that more often these days but that doesn't make it right. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Longstanding concensus can change. The MOS states "As of May 2014, wikiprojects for some groups of organisms are in the process of converting to sentence case where title case was previously used. Some articles may not have been changed yet (this may still be true of bird articles, a few groups of insect articles and some plant ones, as well as a few on amphibians and reptiles)." We are seeing things change. Or, are we choosing to ignore MOS?__DrChrissy (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We're not changing anything "based on a few editors in this conversation". This conversation in the broader sense has been rehashed for over nine years, and those in favor of capitalisation of names of groups of animals did not gain consensus for the practice even after truly massive WP:FAITACCOMPLI actions to force the capitalisation all over the place. Re: "Did horse people come to some agreement about ignoring the MOS?": It wouldn't matter if they (we – I'm in this wikiproject, too) did so. As a matter of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, wikiprojects do not get to make up their own rules in defiance of site-wide general guidelines and policies. If they/we really wanted to capitalise the names of all domestic animal populations, that would require a major change to MOS:LIFE. Not likely to happen. If anything, the persistence of certain parties in pushing on this is likely to backfire, and lead to an RfC that concludes against capitalising not only feral populations, but formal, standardized breeds as well. This very page is rife with objections to such capitalisation, as are most previous relevant RfCs and RM debates. I.e., one should stop kicking the sleeping dog in an unrelenting attempt to get one's way on every specialist style point, or one will not like the eventual outcome and will make that outcome probably inevitable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no justification for capitalising mustang unless it is a brand of car. Definitely lower case. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Away from home - I'll respond when I return. (Ched 104.230.45.73 (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

I'm cross-posting this to WT:MOS.

Should this article refer to its subject as "Mustangs" or "mustangs"? For example,

• "A Mustang is a free-roaming horse..."
• "A mustang is a free-roaming horse..."

Thank you for your consideration. Red Slash 17:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here

• mustang. This is not even remotely different than Wild boar, African wild dog, Wildcat, etc., all of which are uncapitalized in running text (i.e., except at the beginning of a sentence). Sources (see above) commonly leave "mustang" uncapitalized. In addition, a reaaaaaaally heavily discussed parallel RfC a few months ago affirmed that we don't capitalized animals (except "the African wild dog", of course). See that RfC here. Let's not re-fight that fight. Red Slash 17:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This article has been capitalized for 8 years ... and this isn't a species, it's a breed. Montanabw^(talk) 09:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In April 2007, the first attempt I see to move toward consistent case was this diff, toward lowercase. Then in May 2007, with nothing mentioned on the talk page about capitalization or proper name (see Talk:Mustang/Archive_1), Montanabw asserted that it's a proper name and went through capitalizing it, in this diff, in the same edit that introduced the mangled quote in the lead that I recently fixed. I'm sorry it took me almost 8 years to notice. Not my area. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Lowercase mustang is the only possibility consistent with MOS:CAPS. Around 90% of sources treat this as a generic, not a proper. Look at any sources; for example, with book n-grams one can construct queries that separate the horses from the cars with an almost perfect capitalization difference. Dicklyon (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Lowercase mustang, unless it is a recognized breed. Even then I'm not comfortable with it, but willing to follow what has become the standard. SchreiberBike talk 23:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Horse breeds don't have the equivalent of the AKC to define who is or is not a "recognized" breed organization, and there are a number of feral landrace breeds with no formal registry. But to sort out the line is synth on our part, so we tend to rely on listings in breed encyclopedias or some sort of legal acknowledgement, both of which exist here. Montanabw^(talk) 09:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Not a criticism of previous editor, but where does it say on Wikipedia that breeds should be capitalised?__DrChrissy (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Response: It doesn't, the practice appears to defy MOS:LIFE, and whether we'll continue the capitalisation is an open question (many oppose it, and it's not common outside the specialist press - breeder & fancier publications), but it is in fact the status quo with breed articles. I hover around neutral on the matter, myself; the rationales for capitalising breed names are different from those for capitalising common names of species (which we do not do, per the huge WP:BIRDCON RFC – this is the direct shortcut to the discussion Red Slash referred to above, in the MOS archives). I've touched on some of these differences at User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names#Capitalization of breeds and cultivars.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Examples vary and I see inconsistent capitalization even within a single book: [3] and [4]] (search for "Mustang") But at any rate, breeds aren't species. I agree with lower case for species as a general guideline (though not so sure for birds, where real-world use appears to differ from the outcome of BIRDCON), but I get real frustrated when people can't tell the difference between a species and a breed or landrace. We can debate capitalization of breeds some more if people really want to do so, but just so we are clear that these are two totally different things. Montanabw^(talk) 09:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @DrChrissy:, none taken. It is not stated anywhere, but it has become common practice and no one has felt strongly enough to argue against what are likely strong feelings. Defining what I called a "recognized breed" among dogs, goldfish, horses, pigeons, etc. would be a difficult project. SchreiberBike talk 02:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• SchreiberBike is right that sometimes it's a quagmire to define "breed" - you can use DNA to verify parentage, and you can use DNA to identify common ancestors, but in between, it's fraught. Montanabw^(talk) 09:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Lower-case "mustang" per both MOS:CAPS and MOS:LIFE, not only here but also at Kiger Mustang and any other such secondary article on mustangs. In reference to groups of horses, it is not properly capitalised, as mustangs are not a formal, standardised breed (which would be something that some assert is a proper name, and which many breed-specialist though few non-specialist publications seem to treat as such). Mustangs are just several populations of free-breeding feral horses; compare dingo, feral cat, etc. MOS:LIFE is very clear that we do not capitalise names of general groups of animals. There is a difference between "Mustang", which for WP purposes also happens to be ambiguous (a Ford vehicle line, an aircraft, etc. – see Mustang (disambiguation)), and "mustang", a general word in English, from which the capitalized uses derive, the way the Dodge Ram's capitalised name derives from the ram. An exception to lower-casing "mustang" in horse-space would be (if we continue capitalizing names of standardized breeds) when "Mustang" is part of a standardised breed's name, if there is such a case at all. Our article Kiger Mustang is presently improperly capitalised, and should be lower-cased along with this one, and its text corrected, as that name refers to a free-breeding feral population. The article also covers, as subtopics, two standardised breeds (or breeder trademarks for one standardised breed, depending on one's interpretation) developed from the ferals, the Kiger Horse and the Kiger Musteño (capitalised), but neither of these are the Kiger mustang, any more than I am my father or mother. PS: The argument I've seen before, "well, most horse-specific publications capitalise 'Mustang'", is just the WP:Specialist style fallacy. Most domestic animal specialist publications capitalise animal type, breed, species, etc., group names as a form of internal jargon, just as D&D players capitalize "Fighter" and "Thief", and the US Government capitalises "Staff Sergeant" (even when not used before a person's name). So cf. also WP:JARGON, as well as WP:NOT policy. WP does not do what house-organ specialist publications do just because "experts" would like it; we do what makes the most sense for our readership, the world's broadest and most general audience. This is the core lesson of WP:BIRDCON (the secondary one being that livid apoplexy about not getting one's specialist style quirk leads nowhere good).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• SMC, let's not go off on tangents about feral and landrace breeds not being "standardized or "real" breeds - they are "real" breeds in that we have an isolated population with true-breeding traits. (Ask Sponenberg) . Montanabw^(talk) 09:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Capitalize: Breeds and landraces are not species. WP:SSF is not a policy, it is a one-person essay essay masquerading as a guideline. BIrDCON was an example of wikipedia at its worst- running off the editors who actually know something about their subject. I guess this is the latest battleground for the "experts are all scum" crowd. Sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 03:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're one of these editors that know something special, please do share it. What makes it a good idea to capitalize this term even when 90% of sources do not? Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, Dicklyon, I suppose it goes to respect for those who work the most closely with the subject - those despised "experts." 90% of sources are not expert sources; let's look at an example: Probably 90% of laypeople misunderstand schizophrenia to mean "split personality" - so, should we ignore the "experts" who say it is a somet just because the overwhelming majority of people who use the word misuse it? Poor reasoning. Expert sources need to be the starting point. Montanabw^(talk) 09:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll bet you that most of the experts on Don Quixote use Spanish to express themselves. Our article on Don Quixote does not follow that. Without any fuss at all, we take the points they make and change the language to fit our house language. I can't see why we wouldn't change horse "expert" capitalization to match our style. And that's even conceding the point that experts are more likely to capitalize, which is not proven as I see it. Red Slash 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Montanabw: What you see as a disdain for experts does not reflect my thoughts at all. On topics of horses, art, psychology or whatever, I respect experts and I hope those experts will share their expertise with Wikipedia. When it comes to style of writing in this encyclopedia, which is about almost everything, I respect experts on general writing. Writing for a specialist audience has different needs from generalist writing. I am unable to understand people who love a subject and want to share it with the world, but will only do so if they can capitalize the words they want. This is not an attempt to browbeat and insult experts, it is an attempt to make Wikipedia the best it can be. SchreiberBike talk 18:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Lowercase This is a longstanding issue that's been the subject of much debate on Wikipedia. Here's my take on it: Consult subject-specific sources and experts for content but consult style guides and general English sources for presentation. Style guides and general English say lowercase. Wikipedia is not making this up. It's not what a small group of editors hemmed and hawed and decided they liked more; it's in the sources. We should go with it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Darkfrog, you make a reasonable argument, but sometimes style guides cling to archaic forms. Google Blue-footed booby, for example - WP is about the only hit you will get that DOESN'T capitalize, and that is thanks to BIRDCON, which resulted in the loss of several good editors and a lot of very frustrated people. Montanabw^(talk) 09:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• You also make an excellent point, Montanabw, so I did Google "blue-footed booby." I checked the first non-Wikipedia source that caught my eye, National Geographic. They only capitalized it in the title and at the beginning of sentences, which is the only place the name appeared [5]. Their article on the red-footed booby does have a mid-sentence instance. It's lowercase [6]. I checked a few more. Natureworks uses lowercase [7]. So does Scientific American [8]. All About Birds uses capitals [9]. Marinebio.org uses lowercase [10]. A longer search might produce more variegated results, but it looks like Wikipedia is not at this time the only source that doesn't capitalize the name of this species in running text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be very much into finding out who exactly has left the project over frustration with bird article capitalization, Montanabw - who do you know offhand who left? As you yourself commented, it's very much not my specialty (naming policy is). Red Slash 04:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just hit up sciencemag.org. The search term "blue-footed booby" yielded only one article, "Why Animals Don't Lie" in a 2004 issue of Behavioral Ecology. It's lowercase too. [11] Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 50/50 for me Certainly most of the capitalization sources for "Mustang" are from specialist horse organizations. They probably should carry more weight than your average newspaper. But most average English sources would spell it "mustang", not that Wikipedia really goes with what most English sources use per my observations. Whatever the sourcing, Wikipedia goes with consensus. But when an Rfc gets plopped up and a mere 13 hours later on a weekend an editor calls "snow" and reverts the article when 5 of 7 posters see things as he does... that is Disruptive Editing. There may be many equine editors who haven't even seen this yet. Were the Equine, Livestock and United States projects notified, since this article lists them as categories? If not I can do it to make sure they have a chance to comment. The thing that bothers me most about de-capitalizing this are that breeds are capitalized here. A Mustang may not meet official breed nomenclature because of the feral/wild nature, they tend to be treated as breed-like in many writings and our readers will scratch their heads as to why. I know I do. Why Quarter Horse or Thoroughbred should be always be capitalized here yet mustang should not is quite strange and arbitrary to me. I would tend to lean in favor of capitalizing for that fact alone. Mustangs are kind of a special case... it's not like mountains will topple if it's left capitalized like other horses breeds are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click):, if you would like to post to the projects, I'd be grateful. If I did it, I would probably be accused of canvassing. Montanabw^(talk) 10:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be ridiculous. As long as it's worded neutrally it's exactly where it should be posted. Who the heck knows what they would think, but as involved projects they would have better knowledge of the situation than many of us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done...I just added this Rfc to the projects listed at the top of this talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Return to question My original question/concern relates to why breed names are capitalised when this is contrary to WP:MOS. I chose to raise this on the mustang article, which in hindsight, may have been a mistake because there are other issues here (i.e. whether mustangs are a breed or not) which are side-tracking the main question. When I publish articles in science journals (including Nature), I read the "Information for authors" section which gives directions on style. I adhere strictly to that style so that my paper gets published. The WP:MOS indicates that groups of animals (which surely includes breeds) should not be capitalised. If I published an article on WP that capitalised breeds, I would expect it to be reverted.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the question you want to address, you should do it at the project and guideline pages; use actual breeds as examples. This page is not about a breed, except in the mind of a rarefied few. Dicklyon (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon:, actually, the Mustang IS a breed or a set of breeds, at least to the extent that is is most certainly NOT a species or subspecies of horse. It is a landrace, in that humans have influenced its breeding but so has nature. Landraces are a stage in breed formation. The federal law that protects assorted "free-ranging" (i.e. Mustangs) horses applies to specific herds in specific areas and the word "Mustang" applies to all of them as a group, though there are several subtypes of various bloodlines, plus other horses that have been raised in captivity for generations that descend from feral stock and are still called Mustangs. There is also an interplay with the Colonial Spanish Horse here, some Mustangs are, some aren't. ( this article outlines how incredibly complex the situation is - and we aren't even starting to get into the political stuff.) I have long wanted to upgrade this article to get into these issues, but frankly, every time one of these stupid capitalization or "is this a breed?" disputes crops up, I lose all motivation to deal with the actual article. If someone wanted to step up and seriously help collaborate here, it would be really nice. Montanabw^(talk) 18:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that another editor thinks I have raised a "stupid ...dispute". Doesn't the fact that this issue keeps raising it's head indicate that many other editors are unhappy about this and it therefore needs rational discussion and consensus. So far, I have seen very little arguement in favour of capitalisation here that is contrary to the WP:MOS.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the issue here[12] before I realised this was more widespread than just the mustang article, however, editors have chosen to make their comments on this page.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have a very good point. As long as Montanabw takes the "capitalize breeds" convention as permission to capitalize anything that's not a species, we have a bigger problem that I realized. Dicklyon (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Lowercase mustang, no reason to capitalise. (There is a good case for capitalising the names of bird species, as recommended by ornithologists. But "mustang" designates neither a species nor a bird.) Maproom (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Lowercase mustang, not only is there no reason to capitalise, but there is reason NOT to capitalise. You might as well insist on capitalising "Horse" or "Capital". We don't even need WP:MOS and similar guidelines in this matter; simple English literacy gives us ample Indication tHat it it is an inappropriate Practice to use Capitals idiosyncratically, such as in mustanG. Mustang (see, I can capitalise it too; I'm not bigoted!) is not a proper noun in English and it does not derive from a proper noun in Spanish. Even where there might be a basis for regarding it as a proper noun because I call my son or my dog "Mustang", or where fORD call their car "Mustang", or because a horse breeders' body elects to recognise a breed by that name, it does not follow that I should refer to the feral horses on my Ranch (or any other ranch) as capitalised mustangs, any more than I should insist on calling the thing on my shoulder a Satchel because that happens to be the name of my neighbour's elder son. Nor that I should always capitalise "colorpoint shorthair" because (as happens to be the case) there is a cat breed of that name. Not every colorpoint shorthair is a Colorpoint Shorthair, and even if my cat were registered as a Colorpoint Shorthair, that implies no compulsion to avoid referring to him as a colorpoint shorthair. It implies nothing derogatory to the cat, nor to the breed, but may suggest some respect for the language and for WP. JonRichfield (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• mustang. English is conservative about capitalizing nouns that aren't clearly proper nouns, and this is certainly in the grey area. Wouldn't capitalize "wild horse" wudja? Herostratus (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Herostratus and JohRichfield, your analogy fails. This is not a separate species and what is driving me crazy here is that most people here don't seem to get that. All Mustangs are horses; not all horses are Mustangs. Also, not all feral horses are Mustangs, (nor are all Mustangs feral). The Mustang is a unique landrace horse breed with several, but not all strains having been given special names. (The Pryors, Sulphurs, Kigers, etc.) Species are created by nature (or God or whatever), breeds are human-developed to some extent or another. We capitalize many other animal breed names. If this thread is arguing that no breed names should be capitalized, or that some animal breeds should but others should not be capitalized, then that's a bigger discussion that should go elsewhere and this thread should close until that drama is settled. If this thread is arguing that the Mustang is a separate species, then you are simply incorrect; Mustangs are equus ferus caballus just like every other horse or pony. If this thread is about if the Mustang is a "breed" or not, then we have yet a third discussion. So which is it? Montanabw^(talk) 21:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes not a scrap of difference whether mustang is a species, breed or something in between. The point is it's not a proper noun. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• That is correct, and WP:MOS indicates that therefore, "mustang" should not be capitalised. At the moment, I am seeing only one single editor arguing that mustang should be capitalised.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• If breed names are to be capitalized, then there must be some standard for what constitutes a breed. Recognition by some organization as a breed alongside other recognized breeds could demonstrate that. Does this kind of horse have that? SchreiberBike talk 00:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The USA has no standardization for horses and no equivalent of the AKC. The list the USA submits to the FAO doesn't even list known American-developed breeds and includes several that are not.

See my comment below. Dreadstar ☥ 03:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Montanabw, you appear to be having difficulty with your concepts. No analogy is involved, so calm down and stop driving yourself crazy, as you put it (no one else is doing it, so that finger points one way); not only is it bad for your health, but it does your argument not a scrap of good (in e-fora no one can hear you scream!) The reasons that most breeds are capitalised is either that they commonly appear in the headings of pages (No one, please note, insists that the article heading should be "mustang"), or at the beginning of sentences, or that they contain proper names (like "Burmese cat", "Newfoundland dog", "Clydesdale horse", "New Hampshire chickens", and "Hamburgers"), or that the writer has an impediment in his literacy or logic. There is no reason to avoid lower case "tumbler pigeons", "legbar chickens", "crested ducks", "karakul sheep", or "large white pigs", even though none of those is a species, please note, though each is a breed of long standing. You speak of mustangs being a breed (or at the very least a landrace) although you grant that not all mustangs are of the mustang breed or landrace. No one contested that with more than a politely smothered yawn. You might have a case if you changed your name by deed poll to "Mustang" (carefully making sure that through no disastrous clerical cockup you might have got registered as "mmustang" instead) and registered the breed in your name, but short of such desperate measures, I don't see how you could influence the WP:MOS. Furthermore, you then would have to police a lot of literature to ensure that no one demeaned a pedigreed Mustang with lower case, or spelt "sulphur" with a capital, or besmirched the honour of the breed by spelling the feral horse "Mustang". Then what would you do if you found that someone, in the WP Mustang article used an upper case for a feral mustang of no breeding to speak of? Did you imagine that the article is about Thoroughbred Mustangs and nothing else? Frankly, if you wished to hijack the word "mustang" for your exclusive use as a mustang breeder, I think you would need more muscle and money than it would be worth, unless you ran for congress on that ticket (and won!). Now one more time: you could save yourself no end of blood pressure spikes (and us a lot of tedium) by quietly repeating to yourself: "They already know that 'All mustangs are horses; not all horses are mustangs', that 'this is not a separate species', that 'not all feral horses are mustangs, nor all mustangs feral', that no one 'is arguing that no breed names should be capitalized' (remember the Burmese cats etc). Some of them even know what a breed is and what a species is." Then, when you have relaxed a bit, you might find it more comfortable to accept that we (and WP:MOS and indeed simple English) do indeed insist that "some animal breeds should but others should not be capitalized", as determined by the grammar of proper nouns, right? All of which I have carefully explained with several pertinent examples. Examples, please note, NOT analogies. I should hope that with my examples before you, you should have no difficulty in listing which is which. And please note that "mustang" and "sulphur" would fit comfortably into the lower case category, and no one the worse for it. JonRichfield (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Save your condescension, Jon. Breed names should follow the structure of specialists and specialist publications who know the topic, not the generic. It is a longstanding classic rule of statutory construction in law that where there is a discrepancy between two "rules", the specific overrrides the general. This applies to capitalization and grammar here as well. Montanabw(talk) 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But consider that style guides specifically address capitalization. When it comes to the question of how to write encyclopedia articles, they are the expert sources that deal with the issue at hand specifically. I wouldn't prefer a style guide to a large-animal veterinary journal with regard to horse diet, training or breed history but I wouldn't prefer the journal to a style guide on capitalization, punctuation or spelling. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalize Mustang. as breed. If we are writing an article about the breed in an encyclopedia using the best of sources, I assume sources from specialist horse organizations, possibly the equivalent of academic sources, should be definitive. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I disagree totally. If we are writing on Wikipedia, the definitive source of style is WP:MOS. Capitalising "mustang" is contrary to WP:MOS. If editors do not like that, take it up on the WP:MOS talk page.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and usually bases its style decisions on other generalist sources as explained in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms#Capitalization: "based on prevailing use in peer-reviewed scientific and academic journals, general-audience mainstream sources, and the recommendations of most English writing authorities, despite the preference for capitalization in some specialist publications." If we follow specialist sources in a general encyclopedia there will be a great deal of inconsistency and Wikipedia will look less credible. SchreiberBike talk 05:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lowercase mustang - Sorry I'm late, but the bot just notified me five minutes ago. Thank heaven for dictionaries, as they save us a lot of time arguing about the meanings, spellings, and capitalizations of words. Except when we choose to ignore them. Here's the applicable dictionary entry and forgive me if I lack the time to read the whole discussion. There is nothing I see to indicate that this article is specifically about a breed to the exclusion of the animal as defined in the dictionary. If purists wish to create a separate article about a breed, they're free to give it a try. More reasonably, you could create a section about the breed in this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Btw, the organization of this RfC bites. It took me five minutes to decide where to put the above, and I'm still not sure I got it right. How are people supposed to easily find new !votes?? By reading diffs? We generally have separate subsections for !votes and discussion, and new !votes are added at the end of that subsection. Some discussion sometimes creeps into the !votes section, but it still works better than no organization at all. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing other editors on article talk pages is inappropriate per WP:TPNO, WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Instead, WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE should be followed. Dreadstar ☥ 19:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Retain your opinion as you please, but kindly stop characterising unwelcomely factual arguments as sarcasm (or other rhetorical unfair or otherwise offensive tactics). If you think that a solitary point in what I said was either inaccurate, illogical, unfair, or irrelevant, let's hear it. "Mustang" is a far wider term than merely a breed name (if one concedes that it is a breed name at all). Even Montanabw accepted that (indeed, he asserted it unasked). Even if it were a genuine, unambiguous breed name, but not a proper name (as opposed to say, a Morgan) then there would be no logical compulsion to capitalise "saddlebred" or "racking horse". Appealing to "specialist horse organizations", "possibly the equivalent of academic sources" (what a speculation!) as "definitive" is simply pathetic. Roles such as you mention hardly count as relevant to a matter of philology or lexicography, no matter how rarefied their status in "academic" matters concerning animal husbandry, history, genetics, or equitation. They do not concern us except when they touch the image, policy, and practice of the encyclopaedia. Not even when our refutation of invalid argument in favour of WP:MOS reduces the opposition to impotent imputations of sarcasm. JonRichfield (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] For the purposes of this debate, Mustangs are a breed, with multiple substrains based on geography and so on. No one is impressed by your command of big words, Jon. Montanabw(talk) 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] I stand by my comments. No one suggested your ".... solitary point in what I said was either inaccurate, illogical, unfair, or irrelevant," I did however imply that your tone was unnecessary. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC))[reply] MY tone? Littleolive oil, you are kidding us, right? How am I to reply to invalid, off-the-point and repetitious POV shouting down of the opposition and make the culprits like the fact that they are not having it all their own way, even though I religiously avoid ad hominem attacks? You think I am being nasty or unfair? Have a look at Montanabw's immediately foregoing: "For the purposes of this debate, Mustangs are a breed, with multiple substrains based on geography and so on. No one is impressed by your command of big words..." How's that for tone? Not that I am complaining, and I would not even have bothered to mention it if you had not raised the subject, but I ask you; never mind the wording, note the tone and logic of the content: suddenly we are to accept that two centuries of usage of "mustang" (more like four centuries if you count the Spanish origin) goes out of the window at his personal behest? Suddenly the article is about a recent unilateral pre-emption of an established word, because someone decided to appropriate it as a name for a breed and to dictate the spelling whether in referring to the notional breed, or to real mustangs? And he demands that we do it in the face of WP:MOS? Granted that WP:MOS isn't god, and can be overridden by Wikipedia:IAR etc, that isn't free license for riding roughshod over rival preferences. "For the purposes of this debate..." for crying in the bucket! Where does he get off, telling everyone else who is concerned in the article, not just what he is talking about, which might be helpful, but what they they are talking about? The "purposes of this debate" I beg leave to point out are pretty plainly put right at the top: "A mustang is the free-roaming horse of the North American west that first descended from horses brought to the Americas by the Spanish. Mustangs are often referred to as wild horses, but there is debate over terminology. Because they are descended from once-domesticated horses, they can be classified as feral horses." Looking through the article as it stands, I see precious little reference to anything like a mustang breed by that name, so Montanabw's obvious option is to ignore this article which patently is in no way what he is talking about, nor what he says the debate is about, and create a new article entirely, called say... Mustang (breed) or possibly Mustang (horse breed) or the like. Then all he needs do is make his proper prostrations to the five pillars and to WP:MOS and adhere to their strictures well enough to silence the wikilawyers. There wouldn't even be any objection (quite the contrary, actually) to copious cross-linking between the articles. That way you would establish perspective and avoid confusion with fighter planes, cars, feral or mongrel horses, and such like. If you happen to know why he hasn't long since followed such a rational course, please explain. By all means temper your tone and word length to please him, but there is no need to mind my delicate feelings. All I am trying to do is help get this tedious mess sorted out. JonRichfield (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] JonRichfield, your comments are constituting personal attacks on people who disagree with you. Please tone it down. This is a debate about capitalization, and there are no new arguments being raised on either side. Assume Good Faith and stop attacking people. Montanabw(talk) 18:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] DrChrissy.This is an RfC which means editors give an opinion. You don't have to agree but please, you don't have the right to tell editors to go somewhere else or that they shouldn't use the examples they did.This RfC will be closed by an uninvolved editor, let that person decide which points are pertinent and strongest.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC))[reply] I don't think he's telling him to go away. He's just refuting the nonsensical rationale that Ched presented. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Littleolive oil. As you state, in an RfC, editors give their opinion. I gave an opinion on the suitability of examples that were offered as support for capitalisation. After looking at the source, I decided, in my opinion, that because it seems confused about what is a species and what is a breed, it was of poor quality. I tried to warn the editor about this poor quality. In no way did I attempt to tell the editor to "go somewhere else". However, your previous edit "This RfC will be closed by an uninvolved editor, let that person decide which points are pertinent and strongest" suggests you are telling me not to make further edits...perhaps you would like to clarify?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] There is nothing to clarify. I did not tell anyone to not make further edits, but simply added a reminder that this RfC will be decided on by an uninvolved editor, that none of us should be discounting any other cmts. This, " If editors do not like that, take it up on the WP:MOS talk page." is not what an RfC is for in my opinion. We are asked to comment. Suggesting and Implying an editor's opinion isn't valid, and that they should go back to MOS to change MOS to suit that opinion is probably not particularly respectful of other opinions, or the RfC process. An RfC in my opinion is in effect, asking for the variations in opinion that must occur with input from multiple editors. I'm not going to get any further into discussions of who meant what. No need for RfCs to be this unpleasant and if they are no need to stick around. I once again stand by my cmt. Sources that are written by professionals in the field of horse breed/ species are the most reliable and represent the " mainstream". WP:RS overrides (pun intended) MOS, a style guide, always.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC))[reply] My comment regarding taking comments to MOS were because the previous comment appeared to be expanding the capitalisation issue to breeds in general, rather than this mustang article. I think that we are all agreed that this is not the subject of this RfC.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Capitalization per: Individual species within the categories such as German Shepherd, Abyssinian, or Lipizzaner would be capitalized because they are proper nouns.. Yes, I know there is debate ongoing regarding "breed", "species", etc.; but for now I support the capital in Mustang. (although this does seem to be such wp:lame dispute). — Ched :  ?  20:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Innappropriate examples above The three examples in the comment above should be capitalised, or at least the first word. "German shepherd" is capitalised because it is derived from Germany, "Abyssenian" is derived from Abyssinia and The "Lipizzaner" is apparently named after a ranch. Nobody has made such a location connection with mustang horses. By the way, these 3 examples are not individual species as the reference states, they are breeds. I suggest the reference is of extremely poor quality and the editor should not use this again.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not using it as a reference - I'm using it as the reason for my support. But nice try. — Ched :  ?  01:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Summary then (not necessarily final, of course; feel welcome to add to the list): capitalisation of the word in this article (irrespective of usage in any other article)
  • Should reflect WP:MOS principles
  • Should reflect established principles of English spelling and grammar
  • Should reflect the explicit topic of this article as it appears in the lede ("the free-roaming horse of the North American west that first descended from horses brought to the Americas by the Spanish")
  • Should require compelling justification for any divergence from these determinants; ad hoc practices, such as the capitalisation of common nouns in breed names, official or otherwise, are not compelling
• None of which supports capitalisation JonRichfield (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ad hoc practices, such as the capitalisation of common nouns in breed names, official or otherwise, are not compelling – what makes a practice "ad hoc"? Can you define this independently? Or is this just a 'boo term' as "specialist" has become in these discussions? A practice in an official source may or may not be worth following here (for what it's worth I see no case for capitalizing breed names but not the IOC names of birds, the BSBI names of plants, etc.), but I don't see that it contributes anything to call practices in official sources "ad hoc". Peter coxhead (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, what makes a practice ad hoc is its application. Suppose (weak example, but I don't wish to fumble around for a strong one) that someone reckons that the mustang (ie a representative member of the population of "the free-roaming ... horses brought to the Americas by the Spanish") looks like a good basis for a breed -- it has some good and useful genes and all that. All we need do is select those with desirable DNA and bob's your tail: new breed! Which we shall call tadaaa! mustang! Anything else would belittle its ancestry. Problem: the word is very general in its usage; it means all sorts of things. And it isn't generally capitalised. But the dignity of our our New Breed demands a capital, so for that particular purpose (ad hoc) we insist on capitalising it. So far so good. If anyone tells us not to capitalise it in our documents discussing our nice new breed, we very politely tell them to get knotted and if they don't like our documents, they can read something else. We had an ad hoc purpose and we acted accordingly. No problem. Until we go and tell other people that our ad hoc practice now suddenly becomes a universal principal and they must spell every mustang in future with a capital whether it is a member of the breed or not. Does that clarify what I had been saying? JonRichfield (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, M/mustangs are a "breed" but it may be more accurate to describe them as a group of separate breeds or substrains. See below. If you have any actual interest in this issue, I can point you to the research I've been digging up. Ping me at my talk page if you are. Montanabw^(talk) 04:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I agree that in the specific case of "mustang", capitalization does seem to be "ad hoc"; if that's what you meant, then we are in full agreement. But you originally wrote official or otherwise, and I don't agree that a capitalization decision by a body responsible for breed standards would be "ad hoc". Peter coxhead (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, Peter. The ad hoc problem stems in part from the "breed" question with Mustangs. What cannot be separated from this issue is politics - one group of people want to preserve them and another group of people would like to see them completely exterminated from public lands. So even the "breed" question is fraught... if they have breed characteristics, then that is an argument in favor of their preservation. If they can be dismissed as estrays, then it is an argument for sending them to slaughter. Montanabw^(talk) 04:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close

With Montanabw relenting (see his protected edit request below), and lack of any plausible reason to capitalize, I suggest this be closed now. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "relenting"- I am giving up. I very much appreciate the people who have supported capitalization, and it is still my position that this is the more appropriate style, but I am fed up with the drama. Mustangs are a breed, but not in the typical "one group of standardized bloodlines with a single breed registry" sense. (More like "20 different groups trying to save these horses against several groups of ranchers all trying to get politicians to decide how much grass should be devoted to cows grazing on public lands") As noted below, the issue is very, very complicated, and the more research I do, the more complicated it gets. Montanabw^(talk) 04:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The political issues are complicated, and I wish you good luck with that. But wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization, so the issue here is not so complicated. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes wikipedia is wrong, but I cannot fight every battle. You win. Doesn't mean I agree. Montanabw^(talk) 05:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to close this RFC but because of its extended nature I wanted to leave a note for 24 hours before closing in case there were any arguments left to make. SPACKlick (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that people have agreed to the removal of capitalisation. In which case I would point out that the 3 below linked sentences are still capitalised. Just to check if it's intentional.

Regardless of these debates, the Mustang of the modern west has several different breeding populations today which are genetically isolated from one another and thus have distinct traits traceable to particular herds.

The BLM considers roughly 26,000 individuals a manageable number,[16] but the feral Mustang population in February 2010 was 33,700 horses and 4,700 burros.

One example is a promotional competition, The Extreme Mustang Makeover, that gives trainers 100 days to gentle and train 100 mustangs, which are then adopted through an auction.

I will still wait 18 more hours to close in case of last minute objections.SPACKlick (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed these, leaving only the proper name Extreme Mustang Makeover, but what about "Spanish Mustang", "Kiger Mustang", etc Dondervogel 2 (talk)

Those are capitalized in their own Wikipedia articles and I assume would be left capitalized here. The Spanish Mustang is a breed that is also found in Spain. The Kiger Mustang does not appear to be a classified as a breed but is capitalized on Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. I can see that Spain is a proper noun and I assume so too is Kriger, in which case the correct capitalization would be Spanish mustang and Kriger mustang. Still, none of that affects the present discussion, which can be closed as far as I'm concerned. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per wikipedia consensus, breeds are capitalized. So Pomeranian, Standardbred, Quarter Horse, Russian Blue, etc. Assuming that "Spanish Mustang" is a breed, it would also be fully capitalized here on Wikipedia. The mustang in this article was not deemed a "breed"... it was more "breed-like" and has been deemed to not be capitalized. So we have a Standardbred horse, a Spanish Jennet horse, a Spotted Saddle horse,... and therefore a Spanish Mustang horse, as far as capitalization goes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please indicate where this consensus was reached.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus is not always reached at an identifiable place. The widespread practice in WP is that breeds are capitalized, and even MOS supporters like me and SMcCandlish have stopped fighting it (if I read him correctly), as it does not appear that the consensus is likely to change. I would still argue against capitalizing terms terms that are not clearly breeds, like mustang, but I'm OK with Kiger Mustang and Spanish Mustang, which are used as breed names, as far as I can tell. Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) So which rule takes precedence, WP:MOS or this local quirk? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the local quirk, unless you can get a consensus to overturn it. This seems to happen in some other areas, too, like the Civil Rights Movement articles, which would be lowercase by MOS, based on clear majority of lowercase in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is also based on longstanding placement. Just like MOS, if someone adds something to it and it is not challenged, it becomes consensus. You don't think that Wikipedia's MOS was added bit by bit after long conversations do you? Some parts were added and only noticed 6 months later. Non-challenging is also consensus at Wikipedia. Breeds are capitalized at Wikipedia. Can newer consensus change that, sure. But as of right now, they are capitalized. "Mustang" here has been deemed not to be a bread, so not capitalized. And it's not against MOS as MOS discusses taxonomy and species, not breeds. The thing is, breed capitalization changes would require a massive RfC that encompasses much more than the simple de-capitalization of a single feral horse type. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not entirely true. WP:MOS refers to "This applies to species and subspecies, as in the previous examples, as well as general names for groups or types of organisms: bird of prey, oak, great apes..."__DrChrissy (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiger Mustang and Spanish Mustangs both have identifiable breed registry groups. They are both considered one of the Colonial Spanish Horse breeds, substrains of theM/mustang in the eyes of some researchers and wholly separate breeds to others, but everyone agrees they are unique breeding populations. The Kigers are all descended from horses taken from a closely-bred group of feral horses found free on the range in Oregon, the Spanish Mustang registry contains a lot of animals bred in captivity for several generations. Thus, capitalization is appropriate. And let's just not get into the "are M/mustangs a breed" question. They definitely aren't a species beyond e. f. caballus and so let's not muddy up those waters. I'm beginning to lean toward classifying them as a group, akin to the warmblood group of sport horse breeds. But that will require that we please close this discussion so that those of us who actually have done research and written content for this article can get back to doing so. Please close? Pretty please with maple sugar on top? And fudge! And cinnamon! Beer? Whatever it takes, let's end this, please! Montanabw^(talk) 04:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just treat is as closed and move on. More often than not, these things never get officially closed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mustang (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move discussion is closed. [13] Dreadstar ☥ 03:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Change instances of the word "Mustang" in upper case to lower case where used in sentence case and not referring to a specific substrain with wikilinked article. But keep the article under Full protection for at least another week or two. Montanabw^(talk) 04:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reasoning: I have opposed this change from uppercase to lower case, but If the majority here insist that Mustangs must be lower case "mustangs", I have many other things I'd rather be working on. I ask that the article remain under Full protection because other drama has come up here and needs to settle down. The question of what Mustangs are is a complex issue. I have been doing an extensive review of the literature and the short version is that there are dozens of BLM HMAs in 10 states. [14], with different herds having multiple substrains with different histories that have developed over several hundred years, but in some isolation from one another since the mid-20th century. There are two major researchers studying these horses, D.Phillip Sponenberg at Virginia Tech and Gus Cochran at Texas A&M. Both agree that the BLM herds of free-roaming Mustangs (called "wild horses" in the law) are descended from domesticated horses, hence not a true "wild" animal. Sponenberg and Cochran both make a case that many of these free-ranging bands are a form of breed (some might say "landrace" though neither researcher uses that word much). They also agree that some, but not all of these horse herds are Spanish Colonial Horses based upon their phenotype and, in some cases, DNA. Sponenberg holds that these breeds may all be substrains derived the historic Spanish Colonial Horse. Cochran has speculated that they might each be separate breeds. Some bands have more mixed breeding than others - humans sometimes turned out tame stallions of various types to "improve" the herds for various human uses. Politics infuses everything (i.e. if they get rid of wild horses, then ranchers can run more cows) Complicating matters are at least 20 different private, non-profit organizations dedicated to protecting various strains and herds of Mustangs, some calling themselves a breed registry. Basically, it is going to take months to sort through all of this and properly incorporate it into the article, but this can't happen while all the energy is going into an endless capitalization debate. So let's end it and close the discussion, let the dust settle, and then those of us who actually care about this article and want to improve its content can take a look at it later. Montanabw^(talk) 04:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other dispute currently under discussion. Since you are relenting on the caps question, there's no need to wait for the silly RFC to close; just unprotect the article and let us be back to normal. If people war over something else, protection may happen again, but I think people know not to do that by now. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the edit-warring over images and tag-bombing that was part of what promoted the full protection by @Panyd:, plus the bit of edit-warring over the caption in the collapsed section above, I'd be more comfortable keeping the article protected. Montanabw^(talk) 04:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requessts for page protection is done here: WP:RPP. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll unprotect this - but Montanabw isn't wrong about the other little niggles that got thrown in with the apparently large one. If that kicks off again, I think going right back to protection is probably safest. Go consensus though! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did the downcasing, with a few other nits that I don't think will bother anybody. Dicklyon (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"No scientific estimates of their (mustangs in the western U.S.) numbers was made...My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West."[1]  During the late 1800s, most of these were moved north and east, or were removed for other reasons until, by 1934, there was just "a few wild horses in Nevada, Wyoming and other Western states".[2]  As motorized vehicles and tractors became commonplace, horse populations were no longer being kept in check by the ranchers removing them for sell and use, and after decades of unregulated cattle, sheep and horse grazing, the range was becoming overgrazed.  Upon passage of the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act federal land management agencies, that were issuing permits for the grazing of cattle and sheep, told ranchers they must remove their horses from the public rangelands because they were competing for the forage. Many ranchers left their horses on the range, and the BLM and the US Forest Service began to round them up by the thousands for extermination even though many ranchers objected to the eradication of "their" horses.[3] Lynn Wysong (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]