Talk:Back (horse): Difference between revisions

Article horse does not have this covered, at all. Yamenah 03:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article is a stub, but it deserves to be an entire article. The horse article doesn't cover anatomy much, and the horse anatomy article is in serious danger of getting overbloated. I say we keep this one.

To that end, I am going to replace deletion tag with a stub tag, seeing as how I haven't been a contributing editor to this article (yet), I believe I am sufficiently neutral to do so. Montanabw 05:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the lumbar vertebrae be covered in this article, seeing that the back only extends to the last thoracic? Or do you want to mention that the lumbar make up the loins, which are considered when discussing coupling, and when evaluating topline conformation?

Also, I was thinking about a section on summarizing poor back conformation (long, sway). Unless you think it is best left the the equien conformation page.Eventer 21:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start this article, I know that when you say "back" to me, I think of the entire veterbral column, even though I realize that in horses we break the "back" into the withers, back, and loin (not to mention the neck, croup and tail!)

I guess if we are going to do an article on just the mid-thoracic vettebrae, that's a rather artificial distinction. My thinking is that this article is heading in a direction to be a supplement to saddle and should discuss withers, back and loin, that which most influences saddle fit. By that's just my take. Yamenah, where are you? Can you weigh in?? Montanabw 23:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Montanabw that this article is better suited for discussing the withers, back, and loin, and not just the technical back that ends at the thoracic vertebrae. Yamenah 23:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]