Talk:Chestnut (horse color)

AQHA, that big gorrilla, uses sorrel and chestnut as coat colors, and most of the breeds of the western US follow their lead. I won't oppose a merger on those grounds alone, but I have seen a number of works that do break the two colors apart, including my copy of Sponenburg (sp?). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

(I'm quite surprised there hasn't been a battle going on for years...) I don't think it matters whether some people break them apart. Some people (eg all modern Brits) always say chestnut, others (as I understand it) always say sorrel for the same thing, and others use both terms, either interchangably (Brits up to about 1900 I think), or for subdivisions as you say.

It's straightforward enough: a single article would just say "Sorrel or chestnut is a coat colour of horses.."; it would define the broad category, then cover the various usages of each word. With separate articles there is far too much overlap – even if some people do keep them separate, many others do not, so each article has to cover the whole thing.

Although I'd never use "sorrel" myself, I have no great preference as to which would be the article title – perhaps whichever is the older term would be fairest?

I've suggested at Talk: Sorrel (horse) that we keep all the discussion here for the moment. --Richard New Forest (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I think I was the one who either broke out the Sorrel article from Chestnut, or else I was the one who expanded it from a stub (haven't checked history, isn't super-relevant). While I personally agree that these are basically the same color, I am not certain a merge is necessary, and I think that if a merge is done, it has to be VERY clear about putting material in on "what is a 'sorrel'," as the term has significant regional use within certain subgroups of horse people, particularly the AQHA (the biggest horse registry in the world, by the way) which I think actually breaks out chestnut and sorrel as separate coat colors (even though it makes no genetic sense). Some QH people wouldn't know what a "chestnut" horse was if one bit them! In fact, as a westerner who now says "chestnut" a lot, I learned to say "sorrel" as a kid originally and now get some really weird looks from people, who "correct" me and tell me that the chestnut horse is really a "sorrel" <grin> Just my two bits. I am a fan of "chestnut," but the people who say "sorrel" REALLY, REALLY, REALLY care. We could do more with disambiguation links, perhaps?? Montanabw^(talk) 00:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh and Richard (and Ealdgyth), I put a proposal on CGoodwin's talk page about the question of whether there is wisdom to creating some sort of chart that explains the difference between US English and UK English when it comes to horse terms. What do you think? I am amazed at how many differences there can be... Montanabw^(talk) 00:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Given the above discussion, it seems that Sorrel (horse) and chestnut (coat) cover the same ground. Since Wikipedia articles are generally about things and concepts and not words, having two articles on the same topic is a form of content forkery. They should be merged into one article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The discussion is, if you noticed, four years old and all the editors in the discussion are still active editors AND are all knowledgeable horse owners. We've discussed this twice and, by default, decided against the merge both times. For horse people, the distinction does exist in some circles, particularly in the organization AQHA, which has well over a million members, and this makes it more than a mere terminology difference. The fact that modern DNA shows it to be the same color is not going to convince some people. We have ongoing vandal issues over this in some other articles as well, as a person living in the American west, I've even had heated arguments with people who insist that bright red chestnuts are sorrels and darker brown horses are chestnuts; it may sound nuts to non-horse people, but we fight over the damndest things sometimes. While there is some argument to favor a merge, there is also a good argument not to. Montanabw^(talk) 19:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see what you mean that certain circles see the two as different, but I think that the difference can still be covered in one article. Note that I'm not arguing that the two terms are the same, only that the articles either overlap in scope (as it seems to me, as a non-horse person) or are so similar that a separate article is unnecessary. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 22:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

There is a lot of nuance, the issue is as much "Political" as syntax, plus a major geneticist (Sponenberg) differentiates between the two in at least his older works; he may be pandering to the mob to keep the peace amongst the cowboys, but that alone argues for this split to stay, at least for now. A merge is probably going to land on me to get it done right because the other person who did the major color genetics content isn't active any more. The chestnut article in general needs some work and updating, but I have no time to work on it at present. It would be much better to do a merge in conjunction with a major upgrade, as this can't just be a copy and paste merge, there is some content overlap and frankly I am in no mood to waste time on a discussion that is coming around for a third time in four years. If your only argument is a "sounds like" one, I don't see that as making a merge a priority, only an option with no real rush. Montanabw^(talk) 06:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so the merge is warranted if done right, though doing it right isn't something anybody can do. Perhaps we can keep the tags up until you find time? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 13:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I guess. If it's just the two of us, then it's "no consensus" and thus stays as is. I think there is a place to upgrade both articles that may include a merge, but it should all be done as a piece. Montanabw^(talk) 19:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chestnut (coat). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051211064124/http://www.ultimatehorsesite.com:80/colors/chestnut.html to http://ultimatehorsesite.com/colors/chestnut.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've only recently become aware of this spelling, apparently still used with at last one breed, Suffolk Punch, but in this country (Australia), "chesnut" was by far the predominant spelling in several States (Victoria and South Australia) in the nineteenth century, as indicated by Trove hits, "chesnut horse" scoring three times that of "chestnut horse". (Curiously, in New South Wales and Queensland the ratios are reversed). Doug butler (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chestnut (coat). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707154422/http://siteexec.aqha.com/association/registration/generalglossary.html to http://siteexec.aqha.com/association/registration/generalglossary.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ultimatehorsesite.com/colors/chestnut.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorrel and chestnut are separate articles about the same subject. We should have just one article covering the shared subject of a reddish coat color in horses, and provide an explanation of the ways different terminology is sometimes used. Iamnotabunny (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Support. Note that there are three other supporting discussions (and a consensus) over at Talk:Sorrel (horse).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Somebody just do it this proposal has been on the table for more than a decade, and I guess we’ve all had other priorities. There is absolutely no debate here whatsoever, just make it so!Montanabw^(talk) 23:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done. There was no sourced content that wasn't already in the Chestnut article.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply