User talk:Theswine2012

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Peer review Pony received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

WikiProject icon

Portal icon Horses portal

· ·

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.  

B-Class article B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. 

WikiProject icon · ·

Pony is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Pony at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

Archive Archives

Archive 1


 [hide] 1 Size of neck and head

2 Please concider putting the next picture on the article. 3 Polo ponies 4 Strong? 5 They are sometimes seen... 6 Larger ponies may even carry adults 7 Four foundations theory 8 Improving this article 9 Ummm .... DNA studies 10 Not the place to ask but... 11 Edit request on 11 January 2012 12 Edit request on 24 June 2013 13 Yes a pony is a breed

Size of neck and head[edit]

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.Horses are measured in hands. (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)NotWillRobinson yes a pony is a breed kath I win lol 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) Well, of course opinions will vary on this as all topics, but I don't believe that the Shetland and American Shetland are at any risk of being considered a single breed anywhere outside the USA, as the American pony will not in most cases conform to the breed standard of the country of origin [1]. The true Shetland is a charming and ancient breed, which has unfortunately suffered a certain amount of misguided "improvement" but still retains many original characteristics. To my eyes, and with no desire to offend, the American Shetland would appear to be a lesson in just how much damage can be done by indiscriminate outcrossing. In any case, I'd suggest creating a separate page for it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC) You want to start an edit war, that's the way to do it -- slam other people's breeds. (It's one thing to offer valid critiques of known issues within a breed, it's another to say someone else's breed is crap) I hear you say you did not intend offense, but then to say something inflammatory anyway is at least worth noogies or maybe a trout slap. I would suggest it is wiser to say that both versions had outcrossing with the intent to "improve" the breed, but in different directions, for different purposes, both of which have changed it from the foundation type, and in both situations, people who bred for an extreme or without long-term consideration for soundness have created issues that responsible breeders need to address. For now, you may want to read Shetland pony and note that both types are discussed there, and no, it makes no sense to split one relatively average article into two small, poor quality ones. Montanabw(talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Please concider putting the next picture on the article.[edit]

File:Negev Zoo pony ride IMG 1114.JPG Thank you. Eddau (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Cute kiddo and cute pony, but probably unsuitable here, as the shadows make the image very poor quality and it only shows part of the pony. Montanabw(talk) 18:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I'll try taking a better one tomorrow. It is hard to take good pictures in such a sunny place, with an iPhone, when having to run after a toddlerEddau (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Not quite the point. The "uses" section already has two images, one of a pony being ridden by a child, and so the other problem is that we may be making the article too image heavy. I suppose if there was an image of multiple ponies on a pony wheel, that would be unique enough and illustrate one of the more common things ponies are used for, but a child simply being led on a pony is not necessarily something new to add. Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Polo ponies[edit]

You wrote <Undid revision 418600474 by Justlettersandnumbers and minor header tweak. No need for note in the lead when mentioned later in article, but only one sentence>. Suggest reversing this undo, and removing the superfluous material from the later section, as

1) my one sentence is more concise than yours ("Entia non sunt multiplicanda ...")

2) it's in the right place, the bit about measurement differences between horses and ponies

3) it's not in the lead but in the first section

4) it doesn't introduce irrelevant and unsupported statements about specific horse breeds used in polo in specific places (which might be read as implying that those breeds are not used in other places where polo is played) and

5) polo ponies are not often but always called that, aren't they?

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a whole article titled polo pony where all this can be discussed. The only relevance in THIS article is that they are called a "pony" even though most aren't. The lead is a summary of the main points of the article and all the ref to polo ponies does is provide one example of animals that get called ponies that aren't. I'm not going to fight over the lead, but the point is WP:UNDUE, this article is about ponies, primarily. Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Agreed on the first 2 points, so have made the edit again; the polo pony article is indeed quite clear on my point (5) above. IMO it should be moved (again) from Section 5 to Section 1, as it belongs with the other material about terminology in sporting use. Can't understand the references to the lead, it isn't included there, can you clarify? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)I find it a poor idea to say "always" or "never." I do not know usage everywhere in the English-speaking world. It certainly is the predominant term, maybe even the term used 99.999% of the time, but I'm not going to be the one to say "always." And it makes no sense to discuss polo "ponies" in the section on uses because they aren't a pony at all. You're getting bogged down on this, the article here is about ponies, with a nod to helping people understand terminology and some of the quirkier uses we have for words here in horse land. Montanabw(talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Strong?[edit]

"Some breeds, such as the Shetland pony are able to pull as much weight as a draft horse". I find this just a little surprising, but we live and learn! If true, why would anyone bother to keep a draught horse? The Shetland would be much cheaper to buy, would eat so much less, take up so much less space, and live so much longer, and yet still pull the same weight... Perhaps a picture of a Shetland in a log-pulling contest would improve the article? Or perhaps just a bit of editing (over and above the missing comma, that is)? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC) See also pit pony for how they made their mark in the mines for all the reasons you have stated! Kind of amazing (though probably needs more footnotes) I suppose that the main advantage a full sized draft horse has is longer legs so can go faster and cover more ground. Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Well, there's another horse article that needs some work! Anyway, it's not amazing, it's sheer rubbish. Let's be clear: however strong, a Shetland Pony cannot possibly, conceivably, by any stretch of the imagination, pull the same weight as a healthy draught horse. The current horse-pulling load records in the USA for pairs seem to be close to 5000 pounds as measured by dynamometer, considerably greater for stone-boat pulling. Unless a reliable source can be found showing that Shetlands can also pull loads of this order, I suggest that this particular bit of twaddle be removed from the article forthwith. No, wait, "be bold", it's already done; if a proper source proves me wrong, I apologise in advance. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)As for the strength of the draft Shetland, there needs to be a cite, but basically the claim is that under circumstances where the Shetland can pull close to twice its weight, under similar conditions a draft horse can, at best, pull about half its weight. In other words, pound for pound, a traditional shetland is in fact stronger than a draft horse. So in theory, both the 500 pound shetland and the 2000 pound Shire could pull the same 1000 pounds. Under some circumstances, a wheeled vehicle on a paved road, obviously either animal could pull far more weight than a stone boat, of course. There may be a horse pull record of 5000 pounds. It sounds counterintuitive, I'd agree, but I can pull a source that says it. (But it's a general-overview horse book published about 1969, so I've tended to not do so due to its age). Montanabw(talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Follow up Found some sources, local news stories of various sorts. Couldn't find any pull results that listed horse and pony pulls side by side with weight class, etc., and some weights far enough over 5000 pounds that perhaps a different type of pull from that of a dynamometer, but clearly there are some honking strong ponies out there -- and the minis that pulled 2200 lbs, were pretty impressive to me. Montanabw(talk) 05:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC) They are sometimes seen...[edit]

Is it really valuable to start a list of all the places where a pony might be seen? Especially as the list is rather short as it stands, omitting some more obvious places like fields, roads, stables, riding centres, mountain-tops and so on. Suggest eliminating this whole section and writing something like "Ponies are often ridden by children in most countries of the world". "Hot walker" is red, btw. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Well, the article overall needs some work and cleanup. We got horse to GA, and the ponies have been neglected. I wouldn't get bogged down on the lead until the content is improved, then we can go back and tweak the lead to match the revisions made to the article. It really isn't worth doing a lot of cleanup on a lead section when the real work needs to be done elsewhere and it will just get rewritten later. Hm. We could use an article on hot walkers, god knows we have them on everything else... Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Your edits there mostly worked, though you sort of exchanged a UK bias for a US bias. I tweaked it a bit and hope it now reflects a more broad view. Montanabw(talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Larger ponies may even carry adults[edit]

"... in some places, particularly Ireland and the UK, larger ponies may even carry adults on Equitourism vacations." Why Ireland, why the UK? What about Iceland, India, Italy, Mongolia, or any of the other places where where ponies are normally, routinely, daily ridden by adults? Most of those places offer some kind or kinds of riding holiday, if that is what "Equitourism vacation" is supposed to mean ("Equitourism" is red, btw). Why "even"? Doesn't that imply that it is unusual? Many of the world's horses are "ponies" by Western (culture, not riding style) definition, but are ridden by people of all ages. Suggest including something like the previous sentence at the appropriate point, and replacing the Equitourism sentence with something like "Larger ponies are often ridden by adults", or "Ponies are often used for pony-trekking and riding holidays", or indeed with nothing at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Examples of ponies being ridden by adults are relevant. Sources and footnotes would help and a simple "examples include but are not limited to" is really all that's needed. This is getting bogged down by nitpicking. Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Nitpicking? Isn't that what most of editing — and indeed academic publication — consists of? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)There's a line between what supports collaboration and creates a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, and an attitude that one's own view is the superior and correct one, (which is how you tend to sound, maybe that's not your intent) which tends to shut down collaboration. Probably just a need for people to get used to each other's style and assume a bit more good faith. Montanabw(talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Four foundations theory[edit]

"Four foundations theory" links to the article on the evolution of the horse in North America, in which the string "Four foundations" is not found. Is the Four Foundations theory still an accepted model (I'm just asking, I don't know)? If so, it should probably have its own page; if not, all references to it other than the purely historical ("it was once believed that...") should be removed from this and all other horse-related articles. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC) We need to clean up some of those but it's a little bit complicated to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Basically, the four foundations have largely been determined to have been post-domestication landraces rather than wild prototypes. However, the theory was promulgated as recently as the late 1990s, and only DNA studies in about the last 5 years or so have put the final nails into the coffin of the fondly held beliefs that various breeds (I can think of at least 5 or 6 that used to claim it) were the pure descendants of true wild prototypes. Montanabw(talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Follow up Just redid those bits, with citations. Montanabw(talk) 05:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Improving this article[edit]

I don't know what peer review is (in the context of this wiki), but anything that improves this article has to be good. So, a question: does this article read to anyone but me as almost entirely anglo-centric? and perhaps a bit transatlantic-anglo-centric too? Some random thoughts: The concept of 'pony' is IMO largely an Anglo-Saxon one, even if it has spread to some other countries (try reading, say, the Romanian version of the pony page for some kind of confirmation of this idea) No other language that I can think of has a word for it (other than poni, poney, ponny and so on), though I can't read e.g., Japanese This is an English-language wiki, but I don't believe that gives it the right to be an English-POV wiki There's discussion of pony heights in several contexts, and the Australian galloway height is mentioned; but where is the bit about the German Kleinpferd, which is just as carefully defined? I think the article should qualify much of what it says with geographical limiters, and make clear that in many or indeed most countries of the world the pony concept barely exists and while I'm at it, I suggest removing the horse/pony distinction in the List of horse breeds, for more or less the same reasons – it's arbitrary and anglo-centric, and seems to lead to discord more often than clarity

Right, I'll get my hat. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC) JLAN, at this point, I am going to officially label you a tendentious pain in the butt! ;-) I'm also not even going to respond further because the above is a classic example of tendentiousness. This is ENGLISH wikipedia, so of course it's a bit anglo-centric. How about you get off your ever-so-superior very high horse and do some actual work around here instead of just running down everyone else? Montanabw(talk) 07:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)First of all, what term are you referring to? "Pony" as in a small, round, short-legged type of horse? Or "pony" as in a horse that's under the specific height limit and may compete in specific size-limited classes? Germans make things easy by calling the type "Pony" and the latter "Kleinpferd", i.e. "smallhorse". For my comments below, I'll refer to the type.I think the article needs to cover both, and to make clear how different those meanings are. A suggestion: what about dividing the article into three main sections, along the lines of 'Pony as a height definition', 'Pony as a conformational type' and 'Other uses'? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Issues 1-3 (Anglo-saxon concept, Anglocentric POV). The term pony and what it means in most of the world does originate in Britain. So it's completely acceptable to approach the topic from that POV. HOWEVER to make the article useful, it should IMO also include stuff on how the height limit is internationalised to make equine sports make some sense, and how there are little horse breeds that don't conform to the pony type. I'd also like to point out that while no other culture has an original, identical definition of "pony" as a type of small horse, the world only has about three major equestrian cultures: the Anglo-Saxon one, the Western (= American) one, and the Iberian one (Spain, Portugal, and anything south of the USA). Especially the Anglo-Saxon one has spread extensively, and dominates international equestrian sports. Things such as recreational riding outside of cavalry might have never happened east of Germany if not for the English and German influence. That is how important an influence it is.Agree 100% on all points but one: there is, I think, a further major horse culture spread across eastern Asia. I believe from what I have read that there are numerous types of East Asian pony/small horse. Thank you for the amazing linguistic analysis, truly impressive. What I wish I knew, and don't know how to find out, is whether a pony is distinguished from a horse in Mongolia, Japan, Indonesia, China, India, Yakutsk and so on, or whether the English name of, say, the Sumba Pony is just the result of the (understandably) English POV of some English author. Because in the latter case, I think we should not blindly follow it here. A book is designed for publication in a specific market, and often edited when published in a different one; but this is a world-wide source, and should IMO be rigorous on taking a world-wide view. Oh, and Africa does have a bit of a horse culture too, and at least one so-called 'pony'. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Issue 6 (removing pony/horse definitions from the breed list) - opposing. The list could (and IMO should) include two things: typical range of height (can be colour-coded for "always above pony limit", "above or below pony limit", and "always below pony limit"), and breed type (heavy draft, light draft, warmblood, hotblood, pony, miniature etc.) That would take care of both definitions of pony, provided that pony as a type is limited to true pony breeds of the pony type, and Icelandics, Fjord horses, Arabians etc. are left out. Pitke (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Yep, my head is DEFINITELY exploding! Actually, the "Iberian" culture is also the "western=America" one, the cowboy arose from the vaquero, etc... But back to ponies: We DO have a section in the article on all the different height standards already, though always room for improvement. Most of this existing article is about what ponies are and are not; I do think we can improve on it. But over at the list, oh my god, how to break all that down? It would be a nightmare! We have enough vandals and screwed up listing with just what's there! =:-O Montanabw(talk) 08:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)The Japanese term is just English in kana, i.e. "ponii". The Russian is "poni". The term has entered global knowledge from the English language, and for the most part, the English culture. The only original words I managed to spot were the Welsh "merlyn" (definition seems to be "has to be under 14 hands, called ponies depending whether the country of origin does"), the Hebrew "פוני" (with a second meaning of nag as in a useless horse), the Polish "kuc" (which seems a whole different deal), the Turkish "midilli", and the Chinese term I imagine means a pony and stands for "small horse". The Germans make a difference between animals below the given height (Kleinpferd), and pony-type animals (Pony). The article however is lacking elaboration on this. The original and more formal word for a pony in Finland is pienhevonen from the German equivalent Kleinpferd, and has the similar not-necessarily-a-pony connotations ("small horse"; pony-sized Finnhorses are officially this, not "Finnponies"). However, being bred at and under the pony height limit, P section Finns are all ok at the National Pony Show, the bylaws of which state that all pony breeds with a Finnish studbook are shown. Pitke (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)My head just exploded. Montanabw(talk) 07:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Ummm .... DNA studies[edit]

"However, DNA studies of ancient horses have largely refuted the concept of multiple wild origins" - nope! The mtDNA studies support, not refute, multiple matrilines. So I'm changing that bit .... Pesky (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Either way, we probably should cite to the Vila article and not that it is MARES, not stallions (the David Anthony studies and others are pretty conclusive on the Y-DNA thing. Anthony's view is that the rare stallion who could be controlled by humans was the one they wanted -- makes you wonder about all the others! =:-O ) Not the place to ask but...[edit]

...why is this semi-protected? Who goes around vandalizing PONY articles? Horses too, I noticed. Is there something going on I don't know about? Some sort of weird internet meme I'm missing that inspires people to go around vandalizing random animal's pages? (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Pretty much, or to be more precise, a "kiddie meme" that seems to single out a lot of the generic animal articles for really stupid vandalism. Every time we unprotect these, there immediately is a drumbeat of individuals who either appear to be female and obligated to name their own horsey as the BEST in the WORLD EVERRRRR!!!!!!! or else seem of the male persuasion and obliged to discuss whether their fellow gents (identified by name) do or do not have genitalia similar to that of an equine and other unenlightening comments. We are glad to insert any suggested legitimate edits, and you are always welcome to establish a user name; within just a few days you will be allowed to edit semi-protected articles. Montanabw(talk) 03:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)I just assumed it was related to the runaway success of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic online, even if bronies aren't really the vandalizing type. =) Serves me right for jumping to conclusions! -- (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)LOL! The vandalizing of the horse-related articles would make an interesting sociological study for someone.  :-P Montanabw(talk) 20:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Edit request on 11 January 2012[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. 

Many breeds classify an animal as either horse or pony based on pedigree and phenotype, no matter its height. Some full-sized horses may be called "ponies" for various reasons of tradition or as a term of endearment.

Should be "breeders"--Kabakj (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Kabakj (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Maybe "breed registry," but not "breeders" - too broad. Montanabw(talk) 03:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Not done for now: Please provide a suitable source and also be more specific on what needs to be changed. — Abhishek Talk 12:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Edit request on 24 June 2013[edit]