Talk:Horse sheath cleaning

Question

While a veterinarian can clean a sheath, it is a medical procedure and can be done by any person who learns the proper method.[6]

Shouldn't this say "NOT a medical procedure"?--77.248.118.70 (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Tossed the merge tag, as there is no "Horse penis" article (nor need there be, any more than horse uterus). I think it's OK to leave this as a spinoff, because it is relevant to both stallion and gelding articles and also is pretty long to be repeated in both of them. We have articles for other hygiene stuff on wiki, horse grooming for example. I think it's fine as is. I suppose if you are desperate to merge this, it could go into horse grooming, but I really don't see the need to merge. Happy to discuss , though. Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is an article with this title, but it's a sub-section of another article, instead of a standalone article. Would it be reasonable to merge this article back into that section (as I previously suggested with the tags that I added)? I'm afraid that some deletionist Wikipedians might be inclined to delete this article if someone doesn't merge it with another (more notable) article, so I think this article should be merged, to protect against the possibility of deletion. Jarble (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirects aren't really articles, though sometimes they used to be; the redirect section is about one paragraph long. I don't think we have any risk of deletion targeting here, and if we do, I usually succeed in stopping such efforts. Worst case scenario, it just merges back into gelding and/or stallion. I guess my position is we jump off that cliff when we get to it. In the meantime, if some guy who played one season of professional cricket in Sri Lanka is notable enough to survive deletion, this article should be fine. Montanabw^(talk) 18:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:Montanabw: Still, I think it would be better to merge this article into another existing article than to leave it as a standalone article, since the article is still a stub, and seems disjointed from the rest of Wikipedia in its current state. Jarble (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the only logical place would be horse grooming, or maybe horse care, I think. But I don't think the "it's a stub" argument works for me. That said, it's not worth me putting any "drahmahz" into it, either :-) Montanabw^(talk) 16:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:Montanabw Perhaps the article could be merged into Horse grooming#Bathing, then? Or should the article be left in its present state? I'm still a bit concerned about the possbility of deletion (despite the relatively low risk), and I want to make sure that this article's content won't be deleted. Jarble (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL. WP Equine has over 1300 stubs. I'm not in the least worried about a RfD. If it is, we could merge then. Otherwise, my attitude is we cross that bridge when we get to it. Montanabw^(talk) 16:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horse sheath cleaning. 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/20120205081245/http://www.equisearch.com/horses_care/health/grooming/eqsavvy386/ to http://www.equisearch.com/horses_care/health/grooming/eqsavvy386/

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) 21:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)