Jump to content

Talk:Chincoteague pony

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleChincoteague pony has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 11, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Sources

[edit]

We need sources here! If the breed reports and the National Geographic article can be properly referenced, that would be awesome. If you're unsure of how to reference them, leave a message here and we can arrange something

ManicParroT 21:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image File:Misty of Chincoteague cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia vs. Maryland

[edit]

The way this article is currently written, it does not seem to make it clear that there are two groups of ponies on Assateague that do not intermingle (there is a fence at the state line), that only the Virginia group is referred to as Chincoteague Ponies, and that only the Virginia group is rounded up for Pony Penning. I am going to make some attempt at clarifying this, but I think additional clarification will still be needed. AtxApril (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to be bold. This article is one of many equine articles that have unfortunately languished without attention on WP. Please just remember to add references as you go, and make sure your references are reliable. Some breed articles that haven't been quite as neglected, and that you may want to check for ideas on layout, are Haflinger (horse), Suffolk Punch and Banker horse. The last one is probably especially relevant, as it deals with a population of feral horses on the barrier islands. If you have any questions, I'm available here or on my talk page! Dana boomer (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changes so far work for me. But do include good footnotes. If the Maryland herd are not "Chincoteague" ponies, then what are they called? And yes, ask Dana if you need help! (I'm a bit too busy in real life at the moment to be more than the peanut gallery) She's a great editor with multiple featured articles to her credit! Montanabw(talk) 06:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the NPS source that is cited, the Maryland herd apparently are just known as "Assateague wild horses" and do not have a formal proper name as the Chincoteague Ponies do. I've revised the description in the opening paragraph to (hopefully) better reflect this.AtxApril (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Interesting. Well, if the people who put in the Maryland material want it restored, I guess we can discuss it again when it happens. Montanabw(talk) 00:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article upgrade

[edit]

Hey Dana, nice job adding all the great new material. I did go back in and restore some of my earlier material that got dumped and did a little rearranging of everything. Overall, I hope that my edits to your work were helpful and that I didn't misalign any citations in the process or otherwise screw things up too much. A couple of my edit summaries may have been a little grumpy-sounding, if so mea culpa. I threw in some stuff I had researched on Assateague Island, and I also restored some of the stuff that came out of the Maryland side's info. Quite some time back someone was kind of unhappy that MD wasn't getting a fair shake. Incidentally, I deleted phrasing that suggested that the population co-arose on both islands. if we are going to discuss the domesticated ponies on Chincoteague, we'll need some more specific info, as most sources I've seen suggest most of the foundation stock came from the feral animals on Assateague. Montanabw(talk) 06:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chincoteague Pony/GA1

Updates

[edit]

New study, needs additional verification: http://horsetalk.co.nz/2015/07/27/mystery-solved-assateague-islands-wild-ponies-spanish-origins/#axzz3h6lsYQXH Montanabw(talk) 23:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chincoteague Pony. 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:

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) 11:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chincoteague Pony. 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:

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) 06:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chincoteague Pony. 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:

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) 19:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DNA evidence

[edit]

This National Geographic article reports on genetic links between the Chincoteague ponies and horses raised by Spanish settlers in Haiti. Can anybody find an academic source to back this up?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/famous-chincoteague-ponies-may-actually-descend-from-a-spanish-shipwreck

--Stephen C Wells (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, let me read that article for you, and then google the fine clues:
In a study published today in the journal PLOS One, researchers posit that the tooth belonged to a cousin of the ponies roving Virginia and Maryland's barrier islands.
Importantly, both the Caribbean horse and Chincoteague ponies share an evolutionary lineage that originated in Bronze Age Spain, says study co-author Nicolas Delsol, a zooarchaeologist at the University of Florida.
Hiding in plain sight, the paper is here:
This paper presents the mitochondrial genome of a late 16th century horse from the Spanish colonial site of Puerto Real (northern Haiti).
It represents the earliest complete mitogenome of a post-Columbian domestic horse in the Western Hemisphere offering a unique opportunity to clarify the phylogeographic history of this species in the Americas.
Our data supports the hypothesis of an Iberian origin for this early translocated individual and clarifies its phylogenetic relationship with modern breeds in the Americas.
The paper is also discussed at:
From the perspective of Wikipedia, the secondary sources are preferred over the academic paper.
A complete mitogenome is a pretty big deal. — MaxEnt 00:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename proposal

[edit]

I'm no expert on this subject, but the following letter suggests that the proper breed and page title here is Chincoteague pony.

The only portions of animal breeds that should be capitalized are words that are otherwise proper nouns. Thus, German shepherds, Bernese mountain dogs, Dalmatians, Labrador retrievers, golden retrievers, Doberman pinschers, dachshunds, English bulldogs, boxers, Ayrshire cattle, longhorn cattle, thoroughbred horses, Shetland ponies, and so on, are the correct terms. Some are not so obvious and need to be researched, such as cairn terriers and papillons. Cairn refers to a pile of rocks and not a place. Papillon is French for butterfly.

Note also that many inbound links have already adopted "Chincoteague pony" orthography. — MaxEnt 00:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Collins' postmodern deconstruction

[edit]

Three or four minor edits after first publication.

I found the following to be a fascinating read:

In her dissertation, Collin's stated purpose is to "deconstruct the history of the horse in the Americas and its relationship with the Indigenous Peoples". She seems to begin with a conclusion—that there is a "Western science" seeking to "disregard, purposefully exclude, and reconfigure" the traditional knowledge of Native Americans. Ultimately, she'd like to "reconstruct the history of the horse in the Americas in a way that is unbiased and accurate".

...

What she noticeably omits in this literature review are biological, paleontological, and genetic sources of information.

If one has a hypothesis regarding the existence of a mammalian species, one expects these in the literature review.

...

Collin's dissertation cites Ancient Origins, Richard Thornton, and Dell Dowdell, and each of these sources variously or indirectly promote ideas about Native Americans which can be considered racist.

Dell Dowdell, the creator of nephicode.com, actively promotes the notion that Native Americans are the descendants of white Mormons and he believes the Earth is only as old as one of the cave paintings mentioned earlier in this article.

Conspiracy theorist Richard Thornton publishes pseudoarchaeological claims of Maya settlements in Georgia.

And Ancient Origins is a website that traffics in all manner of fake, fraudulent, and fantastic archaeological news, books, and media for profit. Authors they promote range from racists to general conspiracy theorists.

Coming across any one of these in a dissertation for a PhD should be enough to put all that dissertation's sources in question. There were, perhaps, a dozen or more questionable sources of this caliber.

I'm certainly not categorically opposed to the idea that Equus may have survived the Pleistocene extinction and continues even today. This, I think is a perfectly valid, scientific hypothesis.

But it's one that should be tested using science. Not "Western science". Not through the lens of non-indigenous academia. It should simply be tested with science, a set of methods available to anyone willing to use them regardless of geographic origin, cultural affiliation, or ethnic heritage.

More informally, this thesis is dissected here:

She has sufficient credibility with some people, such as her advisors, that she got a Ph.D. from the University of Alaska on this topic and is now engaged in post-doctoral research.

Other people find her research strained and declare her to have no credibility.

Some of them[who?] are highly respected, so their words carry weight, but while some might declare her to have no credibility, they do not speak for everyone.

...

Some people[who?] feel that the Spanish must have left them there from their previous explorations, but Spanish explorers had very few horses with them (so few, we even know many of the horse's names!), they took very good care of those precious horses and accounted for them carefully.

They didn't escape to reproduce so this does not seem like a good source for a coastal horse in that time frame.

There were some herds that were growing in Northern and New Mexico, but for those horses to make it to the Pacific is questionable because of the extreme and difficult deserts in the way.

That Spanish horses were not readily available to populate the area may be the reason that when the discovery was reported in the San Diego Union-Tribune, some scientists[who?] were quoted that this might be possible evidence of pre-Columbian horses.

Quoted material mildly edited for consistency and to trim clutter.

{{Who}} added because Wikipedia is far from the worst offender.

What I actually think about this tempest in a continental teacup is that's it's a harbinger of the continued postmodern siloization of peer review; no matter how ridiculous your thesis document, if you can find a silo of established academics who like the cut of your gibber, you can mint yourself a nice, eternal PhD.

At maximal scale, should things continue along these lines, this eventually becomes an existential threat to Wikipedia itself: ongoing silo wars would have no consensual bottom even for the basic Wikipedia synopsis. — MaxEnt 01:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 November 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. The conversation here has run its course. The consistency of the usage of the capitalised form had been disputed before the first close; the referenced breed standard has also been questioned to be WP:UGC/WP:SPS after the first close. I see no disagreement in the proposed title with the applicability of MOS:LIFE. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chincoteague Pony → Chincoteague pony – In sources, pony is usually lowercase after Chincoteague; per MOS:CAPS, that's what WP should use for the title. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other names that also occur:

  1. Assateague Pony[1]: 127 [2]
  2. ChinCôteague Pony (yes, that spelling)[1]: 127 [3]
  3. Chincoteague (ref #9)
  4. "Chincoteague" ponies (ref #10)
  5. Chincoteague/Assateague[4]: 452 
  6. Assateague and Chincoteague[5]: 436 

I'd support a move to either of the last two if there's consensus for that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Barbara Rischkowsky, Dafydd Pilling (editors) (2007). List of breeds documented in the Global Databank for Animal Genetic Resources, annex to The State of the World's Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome: Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. ISBN 9789251057629. Archived 23 June 2020.
  2. ^ Breed data sheet: Assateague Pony / United States of America (Horse). Domestic Animal Diversity Information System of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Accessed November 2023.
  3. ^ Breed data sheet: ChinCôteague Pony / United States of America (Horse). Domestic Animal Diversity Information System of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Accessed November 2023.
  4. ^ Valerie Porter, Lawrence Alderson, Stephen J.G. Hall, D. Phillip Sponenberg (2016). Mason's World Encyclopedia of Livestock Breeds and Breeding (sixth edition). Wallingford: CABI. ISBN 9781780647944.
  5. ^ Élise Rousseau, Yann Le Bris, Teresa Lavender Fagan (2017). Horses of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691167206.
@Justlettersandnumbers: I was referring to sources more generally (books), not just the ones currently cited. Note that many of the capped Pony uses are for the National Chincoteague Pony Association. Also from the n-grams you can conclude that all variants of the Assateague name are much less common. Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Dicklyon, I don't see how you can expect us to review the sources you're talking about unless you cite them here. Nor do I see how your ngram search is limited to reliable sources only – those being the only ones that are of any interest to us. That aside, your diagram appears to show that "the Chincoteague Pony" is more than twice as frequent as "the Chincoteague pony" and that "The Chincoteague Pony" is considerably more than twice as frequent as "The Chincoteague pony" – and it is of course 'the Chincoteague Pony' that we're talking about (see the first three words of the article). I don't know what all the other clutter is, but perhaps you could repost the search without it for extra clarity? What we're trying to establish here is the actual name of the breed, a proper noun comparable to, say, 'London Road' (a specific stretch of tarmac) rather than to the generic 'London road' (any road that leads to London), so it's unlikely – though not impossible – that it would be preceded by an indefinite article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Books, as a whole, tend to be more often "reliable" than any other set of sources we can get statistics from; nobody is expecting you to review them all. Unless you can show that many or most of the lowercase uses in books are in some way consistently tainted, I think the stats acceptable enough. And even if the capped version is 2x more common in some context, that's still not "consistently". I realize that in some areas capitalizing breeds is the convention; but it's not clear that this is even a breed, in that sense. Also note that forms like "The xxx" with capped "The" are often headings, or titles of works, and therefore not what as frequently we're looking for to indicate usage in sentences, compared to ones with lowercase "the". Also note that your observations are heavily biased by recentism. Go back a few decades and the lowercase pony totally dominates. It's not necessary for WP to either follow or lead this trend toward more capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:LIFE, WP:CONSISTENT, WP:NCCAPS. We only capitalize the species name at the end of a breed epithet when that word is nearly universally capitalized in that specific case, and that only happens in the rarest of ambiguous circumstances (e.g. American Quarter Horse, because "American Quarter" by itself would seem to refer to a coin, and Norwegian Forest Cat because "Norwegian Forest" by itself would appear to refer to a woodland; there are only a handful of other examples). In all other cases, it is lower case: from Abaga horse to Zakynthos horse, from Altex rabbit to Zika rabbit, etc. Really exceptional evidence would have to exist in support of overwhelming source consistency in capitalization of "Pony" or "Horse" in this case, and it does not. PS: Even the highly unusual cases like American Quarter Horse and Norwegian Forest Cat only apply to standardized breeds with official names on standards. Chicoteague ponies AKA Assateague horses are not standardized breed but a feral landrace a.k.a. "natural breed" though even that term is ambiguous (it has multiple meanings and is best avoided). Our article about these horses/ponies is just flat-out wrong in calling them a breed in this way without any clarification that they are a landrace. Various sources do not distinguish between breeds in the standarized sense and landraces, but Wikipedia is not among them, and cannot abuse sources that fail to make the distinction to engage in OR on our part to trick the reader into believing there is not distinction to make. Feral populations are landraces by definition (when they are even distinct enough to qualify as something other than randomly mongrelized). PPS: As for the suggestion to move to "Chincoteague/Assateague" or "Assateague and Chincoteague", that would be against WP:AT. We do not jam alternative names for things into the article title, and "Assateague" is nowhere near the WP:COMMONNAME for this feral population. The latter barely turns up in search results at all [1].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: I had previously closed this, but Justlettersandnumbers requested for the input of an "experienced admin". So, relisting. Reading Beans (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Reading Beans. I asked you to undo your close because I'd really like some clarification of what governs our decisions on article titles – frankly, I'm confused. Dicklyon and seem to agree that the choice of title should be based on the sources (which I think I have now convincingly shown to support the status quo). SMcCandlish refers us to various "rules", but without showing how they support a page move.
At Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms I read " ... breeds should generally retain the capitalization used in the breed standards ..." and then – as the first example – a title that (a) we don't use for our article and (b) is not that in the breed standard. Anyway, the breed standard for the Chincoteague Pony is here; it uses the same capitalisation as our present article title.
Re "We only capitalize the species name at the end of a breed epithet ...": does anyone here believe that 'pony' is a species?
Re "We do not jam alternative names for things into the article title ...": except that of course we do indeed commonly do so when two or more topics form a single entity – Christo and Jeanne-Claude, Laurel and Hardy, Nord–Pas-de-Calais, or for horses Nordlandshest/Lyngshest, Ostfriesen and Alt-Oldenburger etc. If for some reason we aren't going to follow the sources and capitalise Pony, then something like Assateague/Chincoteague would be supported by WP:NATURAL, " ... an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title ... ". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to keep in mind is that the referenced breed standard, in this instance, is not something produced by a widely recognized notable breeder/fancier organization. It seems to consist of a handful of volunteers – only one of whom (the President) lives in the same state as the organization's mailing address (and no two of whom are in the same state as any of the others). See the organization's Staff and About pages. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems to be WP:UGC/WP:SPS. At best, there may be a serious attempt to establish a standardized breed based on a landrace population. WP is not in a position to declare it successful. There are many such efforts going on, in various species, and most of them fail. And, no, we do not put alternative names of things in article titles. Laurel and Hardy is not a case of that, it'a duo best known as a duo; same with Christo and Jeanne-Claude, and this is covered at WP:NCPMULTI. Nord-Pas-de-Calais (probably better rendered as Nord–Pas-de-Calais) is the unitary product of a merger, like DaimlerChrysler. Nordlandshest/Lyngshest is an official name of a standardized breed; it is not Wikipedia making up a title with two names in it (that the official name was, off of Wikipedia, made out of two separate names is irrelevant; it's a case like Aoraki / Mount Cook, where again WP isn't trying to "pseudo-disambiguate" by jamming two names for the same thing into one title; the official name of the place is in a dual format, and forms a unitary name for WP purposes). That's not happening here. There are two names for this variety of horse, one of which is very common, and one of which is almost never used.
Finally, Ostfriesen and Alt-Oldenburger appears to be either the exact the same kind of case as Nordladshest/Lyngshest, or to be two distinct topics jammed into one article, depending on which of the sources you trust (if any), but probably should not be an encyclopedia article, as the total studbook consists of only 180 specimens, and there is no sourcing to indicate this is notable. There's a self-published defunct blog at Horse-Gate which talks a lot about various lineages but never mentions "Ostfriesen" or "Alt-Oldenburger" at all, only the "Oldenburger" which our own article says is a different breed. Then a promotional link to a breeder site (primary source) Oldbenurger-Pferde which is again about the other Oldenburger; it mentions two organizations Verband der Züchter des Oldenburger Pferdes and Springpferdezuchtverband Oldenburg-International, which again are not about an "Ostfriesen and Alt-Oldenburger" but the other Oldenburger. Next is a page at the Gesellschaft zur Erhaltung alter und gefährdeter Haustierrassen titled "Das Schwere Warmblutpferd der Oldenburger-Ostfriesischen Zuchtrichtung" which seems to indicate that Ostfiesen is an alternative name of the older Oldenburger not something called Alt-Oldenburger (a name that never appears in their article), so it directly contradicts our material. Finally, there is another primary-source, promotional link to a small group dating to the 1980s called Zuchtverband für das Ostfriesische und Alt-Oldenburger Pferd, the first and only mention of "Alt-Oldenburger" and the first an only suggestion that this is the same thing as Ostfriesen, conflicting with the other sources. Their own material indicates that what they are trying to do is "backbreed", to approximate a re-creation of, a breed that has been lost to outbreeding with Hanoverians and other stock. In short, that article is a prime candidate for AfD, being about a non-notable topic with nothing but primary, self-published, and promotional sourcing, and clearly engaging in OR and clearly PoV-favoring the claims of a particular breeder group over others. It is not exemplary of anything in any way. Quite a few other articles on more obscure livestock breeds have similar problems.
PS:, re: "does anyone here believe that 'pony' is a species?" Of course not, but let's not be silly. The MOS:LIFE wording is clear on this: A species term appended at the end for disambiguation ("cat", "hound", "horse", "swine", etc.) should not be capitalized, unless it is a part of the breed name itself and is consistently presented that way in the breed standard(s) (rare cases include Norwegian Forest Cat and American Quarter Horse). Neither "hound" nor "swine" are in the same class as words substituting for species names, so there is no question that MOS:LIFE's lower-casing in this regard also encompasses "pony", a substitute for "horse" when the variety is short. I find Justlettersandnumbers's sudden resistance to the application of MOS:LIFE (in multiple ways even!) exceedingly strange, because this editor participated heavily in the VPPOL RfC that lead to MOS:LIFE saying what it does today, including permitting limited forms of capitalization for established, standardized breeds, not for landraces, and not for terms like "pony" and "horse" except in unusual cases of extreme ambiguity, and even then only when supported by the preponderance of the source material. That was a hard-won consensus, against considerable opposition (i.e., a preference to lower-case everything but proper names of places and the like). This remains a rather fragile consensus, and JLAN turning against it out of the blue is quixotic at best, since a new RfC on the matter would be fairly likely to conclude against any special allowances for breeds at all since independent source support for such capitalization is quite weak (it's a habit primarily found in breeder and fancier materials, not newspapers, encyclopedias, etc.). PPS: The first example at MOS:LIFE's material on breeds has been corrected to reflect that the article moved (again). The fact that an MoS line-item might not be updated quickly after a page move does not magically invalidate the MoS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: No new !vote has been made since last relist. Relisting again for a very clear consensus here. Reading Beans (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chincoteague_pony&oldid=1206662516"