Talk:Kasztanka

Merge proposal

I strongly recommend merging this article with the main article on her owner. Though the creator claims the horse is notable in her own right, there is no evidence presented of this. Just like George Washington's beloved and semi-famous horses, Nelson and Blueskin, who do not have their own articles, there appears to be no reason to give this animal a stand-alone article. Absent justification of notability per WP:Notability guidelines ("it's in Polish WP" is not a good enough reason, by the way) and expansion, I believe it should be merged. Montanabw^(talk) 05:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I ran the Polish text through a translator, and beneath the gibberish translation, I believe that we picked up that basically, yes, she was his favorite horse, she had two foals, they made a taxidermy mount of her after she died (apparently from some sort of shipping disease), the mount fell apart due to lack of proper maintenance and has been incinerated. And that appears to be it. Anyone who can translate Polish is welcome to explain the Polish article, but here is the internet translation:

"In (to) born < give birth (be born) > Czaplach Mayłch, but you will say in (to) in (to) bred great ludwik Czaplach Popiela miechowskim, in cracow. By owner offered archers and brigades of polish legions, it has hit on service for commander of joseph Piłsudskiego, which (who) invaded on for kielce already her (it). There was noble, short, because gauging ok. In cloud 150 cm, has has come with (from) mare jasnokasztanowata łysiną and all four white bumpily nadpęciami. It was not characterized neither special walks, extraordinary gallantry anie, but it require no from she (it) perfomance (doings). There was favorite of joseph Piłsudskiego and faithful towarzyszką. There was nerve horse Kasztanka, it hated artillery fire, but when you lasted in it , it supported it (him), attaching reciprocating. Anyway, you recognized (regard) only. In barracks 7 Kasztanka. Two has given birth after state stallions regiment Ułanów źrebięta - klaczkę and ogierka. They have not behaved informations, for (after) that stallions and they were from which (who) herd. Son become Kasztanki, gray stallion of nemen, it has inherited beauty after mother only, but she (its; her; it) mental feature not. It was completely sluggish. There had to be successor of mother in service of speaker, but it has not came for it. Daughter has been called by joseph name mayor Kasztanki Piłsudskiego, on reminder of river by swimming Zułów - property family, speaker has been born in which (who). It has has come on world 10 april 1925 year. Probably, < credible > it was oinment kasztanowatej and same incrementation (growth). Last case of (together of; time of) speaker during military parade in warsaw 11 november 1927 dosiadał Kasztanki. It has been sent in day for mazovian minsk 21 november 1927 year, railroad transport, where it has fallen ill in way. It has fallen about hour fifth 23.11.1927 year early < morning > Kasztanka. Skin has been taken off (taken down) Kasztanki and stuffed and it has hit in (to) this form for (after) death of speaker in 1935 year for museum in (to) Belwederze. It conceal remaining remains in park 7 koszat. Regiment Ułanów, where boulder with inscription put here lie KASZTANKA, favorite mare of combat speaker Piłsudskiego. Stuffed Kasztanka, during war, it has hit under german occupation for museum of troop in warsaw. It has survived war, but from lack of normal custody (protection) over packages, it has been broken down (disabled) by very mole. It become in museum store house (magazine). Probably, < credible > it has been incinerated after war."

Seriously, if this is all there is, I say merge. Montanabw^(talk) 05:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There is more in other articles. This is a WP:STUB. Kasztanka is as notable as any other famous horse out there - certainly it is one of the most famous horses in Poland. PS. On related subject: Kasztanka is mentioned in at least 25 books.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate your patience in coping with the machine translation. (No better argument for relying on human translators!) The article will be expanded in due course. No need to rush it into merger. Nihil novi (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I also would recommend non-merge solution. The article is expandable and notable per WP guidelines. The horse itself was a subject of many publications and painting of famous painter. Visor (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, there are two people (the one who placed the earlier tag and myself) arguing for a merge and two or three against, or at least urging us to wait, so that is not consensus. Thus I restored the tag (also wise to leave it on for more than 12 hours so that both sides can more fully discuss) The merge tag can stay on for weeks if we want to wait a bit, there is no automatic deadline. Here's my bottom line: There are WAY too many quasi-"famous" horse articles on Wikipedia and we at WikiProject Equine are going through the stubs and starting a general purge of them. So the "notable as any other famous horse out there" is not much of a criterion, given that we are cracking down on that very thing over at the WikiProject. The question here is simple: Why is the HORSE famous? Just because an animal's owner is, doesn't make the horse notable, particularly accorting to WP:NOTABILITY. (Like I say, George Washington's horses don't have their own articles here and they are mentioned in HUNDREDS of books and probably hundreds of paintings too, but they were a couple of nice geldings, so much as he liked them, that doesn't get them their own articles). What did the HORSE do that was notable? Did she save his life? Did she accomplish some great athletic feat? She only had a couple of foals, it sounds like, so it's not like he became a famous horse breeder because of her. Just being a favorite mount means nothing as far as Notability goes. I'm not saying that she's not notable, I just see zero evidence for it. You don't even list what breed she is, her color is nothing special, all your references are in Polish, so we can't verify anything, I am really serious here. You need to establish something here other than "we say she's famous." Why? I see no reason not to merge with a redirect that will allow the article to be recreated later if there is enough information to justify expansion. I see the Józef Piłsudski page also has intense discussion as to his notability, I'm not going near that conversation, but I'd think that a paragraph or two on his horse wouldn't be objected to there? Montanabw^(talk) 01:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, just start the article on Washington's horses instead of making comparisons. I am sure it will be interesting. Tymek (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am agreeing with Montanabw here. I believe George Washington's horses are just an example, although many other famous people throughout history could be used. Before the advent of automobiles, everyone rode horses, and I'm sure most leaders had a favorite horse that was shown in their paintings and mentioned in biographies and autobiographies. Another example would be to say that many leaders had their favorite dogs, but does this mean that the pampered pets of Abraham Lincoln, U.S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, the 12 owned by Calvin Coolidge and all of the others should each have their own page? Repeating what Montanabw says, according to the notability standards, a relationship with a famous person is not enough in itself to convey notability. Kasztanka herself is not notable, although her rider may be, and this article should be merged with the Józef Piłsudski entry. Dana boomer (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

By those standards, I expect to see the deletion of the article on Alexander the Great's horse, Bucephalus. Nihil novi (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just tell us why this horse is notable. So far you are not proving your case. If this article had as much content as Bucephalus, perhaps we would have proof of notability. Expand the article, and if you can't get to it now, the redirect will always allow you to recreate it later when you have some actual content. (By the way, I think her owner IS notable, and that whole discussion over there about that article being too long is really rather silly, he is OF COURSE a notable historical figure, so I'm with you on that one). Like I say, just put up some evidence by expanding the article past a stub. We will go away once it is a substantive article that demonstrates notability. Montanabw^(talk) 02:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why a historic military-political horse like Kasztanka is less "notable" than an entertainment horse like Trigger. Nihil novi (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Think about it like this: if Kasztanka had nothing to do with Józef Piłsudski, would you still consider her notable? Trigger at least was in movies with various actors other than Roy Rogers, and was a trick horse, and the article has people who have expanded it past two sentances. As Montana said, if you make substantative additions to the article, with references in English (as this is the English version of Wikipedia) that in some way begin show her notability (other than the fact that she was Pilsudski's horse), we will be happy to leave you alone. So far all that has happened on the article is that the reference formatting has been tweaked. There are several of you arguing for keeping the article seperate...can you back up your stance with additions to the article page, rather than the talk page? Dana boomer (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Like Dana said. Put up info. Montanabw^(talk) 05:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dana, whaddya think? Enough in there to salvage it now? Looks like a decent translation of the article in Polish wikipedia, needs some horse word fixes and wikifying, but if we compare to, say Traveller (horse) of Robert E. Lee, who DOES have his own article, are they comparable? Montanabw^(talk) 06:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Two (albeit Polish, but expecting English sources on this is a bit much) articles. I've seen worse, and it's at least encyclopedic. Ealdgyth | Talk 06:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Much improved. Agreed that it still needs some wordsmithing, but is no longer a candidate for a merge. Nice job on the expansion, guys! Dana boomer (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the merge notice - I hope this is not controversial now. I will nominate the article for WP:DYK, nice job guys! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Cause of death

As Montanabw pointed out, the current version is somewhat confusing with regards to the cause of her death. I wonder how we can insert the part "Reportedly on the train, Kasztanka had attempted to get to the other side of a partition and had struck her backbone against a pole with all her force, and this was the cause of her injury and death" into the report - it appears it should go and clarify the following part: "On November 21, 1927, she was sent by rail transport to Mińsk Mazowiecki, and became ill en route." I am assuming what they mean by ill is her injuring herself in the train.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the reports is that if she had a spinal injury that caused her to be unable to stand, they probably wouldn't have let her live for two days and then say it was heart failure. She wouldn't have been able to get off the train and they probably would have shot her on the spot to put her out of her misery. The report saying she "became ill" and the precise bit about her cause of death due to some sort of internal organ failure is more consistent with a horse that has a twisted gut from horse colic, they lay down and roll, often trashing about a lot (and if she colicked on the train, which is highly possible, horses do colic when under shipping stress sometimes, and then tried to writhe around in pain, that would explain how she hit herself against the pole, or whatever happened...) and it can take a couple days before they die a fairly painful death. It's sort of weird. I have no answer other than to see if there are other sources, but I'd be curious to know what else is out there. Montanabw^(talk) 06:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)