Talk:Pony

where are the talk page archives???

There's nothing here so where are the archives???

It looks like there has never been discussion on this article, so there is nothing to archive. Check the 'history' tab. Skittle 13:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Does anyone else think the photo should be replaced? (the pony looks like it has been half clipped)--Horsepony 11:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Some ponies shed slowly in the spring, especially ones that may have lived long enough to begin developing Cushing's syndrome. Snezzy 21:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the ones with responsible owners are GROOMED. (smile). Montanabw^(talk) 20:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What kind of picture are you looking for? Any specific angle or whatnot? (Myhorses 18:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Just a nice, ordinary pony that has been groomed some time in the last year, not one that looks like it's a moth-eaten stuffed animal. If you have some nice images to propose, maybe post them here and we can pick our favorite. Montanabw^(talk) 20:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My wiki pony

Anyone know why this page receives a relatively high level of vandalism? It doesn't seem an obvious target to me. Skittle 12:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a stereotype engrained in our culture that a pony is the ultimate gift for a little girl - something they all want but very few are lucky enough to actually get. See, for instance, the famous and often-quoted Calvin and Hobbes comic strip in which Suzie wishes she had a hundred friends so she wouldn't have to deal with Calvin, and concludes with a sarcastic "And while I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony." Ponies also usually make the list (along with kittens and puppies) when people are listing cute things. (As in "OMG PONIES!!!1!") I imagine that those factors contribute to Pony being an article that vandals are likely to think of when they wake up in the morning and ask themselves, "Hmm, what should I vandalize today?"69.63.60.162 23:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Having said it got a relatively high amount of vandalism, it received nowhere near the amount I would expect to be required for sprotect. It had been left alone for about 10 days, then vandalised a couple of time. Nobody even warned the vandals, one of whom then went on to make a sensible edit. Why has it been protected? And why was the template moved to tprotect? Confused. Skittle 03:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection. If you have been tracking the history of the past several weeks, the article has been repeatedly vandalized, and a number of us have been spending too much of our time reverting multiple unnecessary and obviously intelligent comments about the details of pony genitals ("Ponies have big ____s") , pony sexual orientation ("ponies are g--"), if ponies lack intelligence, ("ponies are dumb, ponies Su--") etc., etc., etc...I requested semi-protection three or four times and was turned down until this week when in a fit of frustration I asked a couple admins on their talk pages to take a personal hand in the matter. It was semi protected for awhile, I'm not sure what generated total protection, but I'm OK with it. If there were a few good edits that accidentally got tossed in all the reverting that had to happen, we can just put them back in when the protection is off. I say we let this article cool down for awhile until the vandals find someone else to bother, Montanabw 01:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, looking at the edit history (and this has been on my watchlist for quite some time), it isn't receiving that much vandalism compared to most articles I've met that get sprotect, and even compared to some that don't. But if you think it will cool things down, go ahead. In my experience sprotect is supposed to be used when vandalism/reverting is preventing people from making constructive edits (because of too many edit conflicts), but I don't see that here. And the tprotect only seemed to be a change to the template, because when I tried to edit I still could. Hence, why I'm confused. Skittle 01:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine that this article was protected because none of the "anonymous" edits were productive; on the contrary, they were, nine times out of ten, vandalism or otherwise deconstructive. This is a good opportunity to improve and enhance the prose and provide reliable sources. Take advantage. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okely dokely. Still doesn't seem normal practice :-S As long as the vandalism/tests get reverted quickly without taking up too much potential editing time, a high vandal/useful ratio among anons is the expected price of wikipedia. Maybe I will try to find some references for this, as your template has alerted me to their absence. I don't think this will be any easier than it would have been though, given the rather slow rate of vandalism this article was receiving. Skittle 02:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, it seems to take an act of god to get anything semi-protected and I wish it was a little easier to get. I'm not quite to the point of saying that unregistered users can't edit (After all, I spent about a week as an unregistered user before I got comfortable enough with the system), but this constant little stuff is aggravating. On an article like this one, that isn't in a high-traffic area, where people like me might check it once a day, even daily vandalism is a problem. Compared to all the other horse articles on my watchlist, this one almost gets hit the most...only horse had more problems (the same kind--constant inappropriate anatomical and gender orientation comments) and it is pretty much permanently semi-protected. the article itself is pretty weak, and still classed as a stub. Those who have the motivation sure can make valuable edits. And THANK YOU, Can't Sleep...! Montanabw 02:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cruelty?

Montanabw, if I observe correctly, you inserted the note that some people regard a pony ride that uses a wheel (which you liken to a hot walker) as being cruel. What substantiation do you have for that claim? I run pony rides, and I constantly monitor my ponies to see that everything is ok with them, whether they are led by hand (as at a party) or on the wheel (as at a festival). My ponies work four hours a day, two days a week. No cruelty. However:

1. I have been told by do-gooders that all pony rides are cruel by definition.

2. I have had someone distract me, tell me what nice ponies I had, while a confederate loosened the girth straps on my ponies, presumably with the idea that a child would fall off and be killed or injured. I'd be out of business and my ponies would be "free". (Sold at auction, more likely.)

3. Of all the material in the Wikipedia "Pony" article, it's the sentence about the pony wheel that suggests cruelty. My experience leads me to think that some people believe all use of animals to be cruel. Why single out pony wheels?

4. It's NOT a hot-walker, which is a motorized device. A pony wheel is powered by the ponies, and moves only when they are inspired to move. Sometimes they inspire themselves. Sometimes I ask them to walk. They are well-trained enough to stop on command so that children do not get hurt.

Do you have any suggestions on how we might rewrite to avoid suggesting to the casual reader that I'm somehow cruel to my fine ponies? Snezzy 21:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I can look at a rewrite, your point is well taken. However, [ersonally, the only pony rides I have ever seen have been at carnivals, where ponies are handled by relatively unskilled "carnies," and many are alternately skinny or have visibly foundered feet, usually are filthy dirty, are worked most of the day every day without proper access to water, etc. As a horse owner, I am appalled. In my area, it has been the local saddle clubs (hardly bleeding hearts) who have called in these outfits and largely shut them down. I think it is reasonable to provide other examples, as I think that well cared for ponies are a delight to children. How about you find some articles on the net that are not ads, but rather news stories or studies, pop the URL's here and then we can work them into the article with proper footnotes? In the meantime, I will tweak the language a bit to tone it down if I can. Montanabw^(talk) 23:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Spelling error

"contientious" should be "conscientious", in last paragraph under Varieties and Uses of Ponies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.185.32 (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Good spotting, thank you. Montanabw^(talk) 20:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Archives?

I don't see any archives either. Does anyone know where they are located and how to get to them? (Myhorses 18:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

There are currently NO ARCHIVES. This article hasn't generated enough discussion to warrant one. Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pony vs. Foal

Can someone add a blurb explaining the difference between a colt and a pony? That is, make it clear that a pony is a horse that stays small, while a colt is a baby horse (and for that matter, a baby pony?) It appears to be a somewhat common misconception that a pony is a baby horse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSquirrel (talk • contribs) 03:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A "colt" is a MALE horse under the age of four. A "baby horse" is a foal. baby ponies are also foals. However, if some people think a pony is a baby horse, I guess a blurb is worth mentioning. Hard to imagine people are THAT ignorant, but I guess if you live in the city and have never seen a horse. Will think about how to say it, but probably a point well-taken. Montanabw^(talk) 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I grew up thinking that Ponies were juvinile horses. I think it's definitely worth noting the difference between the words "Pony" and "Foal." Bartholomewklick (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should add the information thusly, in the first line: "A pony is a small horse with a specific conformation and temperament, not to be confused with a foal, which is a juvinile horse." Bartholomewklick (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not in the very first sentence, but maybe somewhere. Perhaps last section of the intro paragraph. You DO make a very good point that some people who know nothing about horses may make this error, though it is something horse people consider blatently obvious. I commented in more detail at the foal talk page. It would be helpful to say something that could be sourced or at least phrased to not sound condescending. Carefully done, this could work. Montanabw^(talk) 04:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We could have: "For the word referring to young horses, see foal," on the top of the article, exactly as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foals_(band). I think this is a far better solution, and doesn't require an intrusive and possibly demeaning edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartholomewklick (talk • contribs) 23:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See the edits I made yesterday to both articles. I see no need for a disambiguation tag at the top. While some people do probably confuse ponies and foals, I suppose some people probably also think a Shetland sheepdog is a baby collie too. Yet no one disambiguates those... I don't think. Montanabw^(talk) 05:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Latin names

On some of the latin names the E in Equus is lower case yet should be a capital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.121.38 (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Image Description

"A Highland Pony, demonstrating the pony characteristics of sturdy bone, thick mane and tail, attractive small head, and small overall size"

when you say attactive head, is this a breed standard, like shiny coats in labs, or is it an opinion,like this is a pretty pony?Д narchistPig (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Small refined heads are a breed standard. Small heads in general are a preferred characteristic in ponies and light riding horses. I suppose the word "attractive" is mildly POV, but it actually IS a very cute (if also very fat) pony. Montanabw^(talk) 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of image descriptions, the section describing the Chincoteaque controversy may benefit from not taking sides in that controversy by calling them equines rather than ponies. Just a thought. 76.111.93.56 (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are called "ponies" by most people, hence the controversy! (grin). Montanabw^(talk) 05:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Size of neck and head

Discussion of horses and ponies describe the height up to the withers. Given a particular height, how much longer would the neck be, and how much larger, and higher above the ground, would the head be? I'm sure there would be some variation, but it would be nice to have some idea. Thanks. 69.212.36.86 (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)NotWillRobinson

Height is measured at the withers because that is a stable point of the anatomy, unlike the head and neck, which can move up and down. There is no real correlation to height and neck length in terms of proportionality, though of course ponies are generally smaller in all dimensions. While many pony breeds have draft horse proportions, i.e. relatively short necks set on low and big heads, other pony breeds have more riding horse-like proportions, and hence longer necks set on higher and finer heads. Some breeds, like the [{Shetland pony]] even have different branches within the same breed that differ dramatically in looks. The "Classic Shetland" is a little draft horse-looking creature, the "American Shetland" is very refined. Two ponies the same height could therefore have dramatic differences in neck length, angle at which the neck attaches to the body and so on... Hope this helps. Montanabw^(talk) 19:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ponies are good and beautiful animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.148.152 (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

typo needs fixing

The second paragraph under "Breeds and types" needs a space after "hands"

For showing purposes, ponies are often grouped into small, medium, and large sizes. Small ponies are 12.2 hands50 inches (130 cm)

anon 09:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

subspecies vs race

shouldn't this article mention something about ponys and horses being the same species?--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 08:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the first sentence "A pony is a small horse" quite cover that? Pitke (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I mean, if someone really NEEDS us to add Equus ferus caballus, I suppose we could, but I don't think we want to duplicate everything in the article horse. Montanabw^(talk) 00:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone should specifically say that ponies have exactly the same number of chromosomes that horses have, and are in fact the exact same animal. There is no way of distinguishing between them on the basis of their genes. Either ponies can always cross with horses, or they can't. If they can't, they are different species. The first sentence of the main article should be changed to reflect this. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems blatently obvious that a pony is genetically a horse, but I suppose it may not be obvious to some people, so will tweak the lead. Montanabw^(talk) 10:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Adkr9, 6 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

A pony is a small horse (Equus ferus caballus) with a specific

should be changed to

A pony is a small horse (Equus ferus caballus) with a specific

since the link is to Equus (genus), and not an article about Equus ferus caballus Adkr9 (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Adkr9 (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Probably no real need for the wikilink to the genus at all, really. Montanabw^(talk) 05:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)