Talk:Connemara pony

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Armada legend[edit]

This idea of Spanish horses from the Armada influencing the Connemaras, I found so fascinating that I even got a book describing the "landfall" (to say so) of the ships of the Spanish Armada in Ireland. From the description of the events given in this book ("Ireland - Graveyard of the Spanish Armada") it apears highly unlikely that any horses aboard the ships could have been used to improve the Connemara race: -I found no evidence that there were horses aboard anyway (the invasion fleet was not part of the Armada ending in Ireland) -The ships which eventually decided to head for the Irish coast must have been in a desolate state, with no water or food left. I doubt that horses would have survived that. -The three ships which made it to the Connemara coast were wrecked in storms, with several hundred sailers and soldiers killed when trying to reach the stormy coast and only few survivors (at least after the Irish troops came in). Even many sailors were not able to even leave the sinking ships. How could horses tugged away under deck have freed themselves?

The similarities in appearence between Spanish horses and Connemars are nevertheless striking; so I am pretty sure that there is Spanish genome in there! Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 15:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous horse list[edit]

I suggest removing the "famous Connemaras" section altogether. My recommendation is create a Category:Connemaras, within the Category:Famous horses and those who have articles can be linked to that category (and the category can be linked to this article). I have noticed that once these "laundry lists" begin, they expand exponentially. By creating a category, any individuals who are truly significant can have their own wikipedia article and pass the "Notability" criteria. Montanabw(talk) 22:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Tag[edit]

Can ref tag be removed now? AeronM (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by wikipedia standards. the article is inadequately sourced, but so are 80% of the breed articles (no, more like 90%, I doubt even 30 of them are properly sourced, there are so many stubs), so based on the fact that there are SOME sources, and they are even footnotes, I think it's OK to toss the unref tag, but if anyone ever wants to take this article up to GA status, it will need a lot of work. If you want to compare it to some "average" B quality articles that have adequate sources, though not perfect, look at Morgan horse or American Quarter Horse (to name two that I have worked on but have no particular emotional attachment to). The most recent horse breed article to get WP:GA status is Appaloosa, if you want to see the level the wikigods require for that label. I think some of us are making noises about taking up the Quarter Horse article to GA, but that is a lot of work, and, as you know, I have recently been distracted by certain other issues.  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 07:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide source for this please? --AeronM (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put your questions in-between someone else's post, OK? It confuses who said what (there is a guideline on that somewhere) I fixed that so it flows properly.
But to answer your questions, see Wikipedia:The perfect article and Wikipedia:Verifiability for starters, and I say "inadequately sourced" based on my experience that when articles go up for Good Article status, and even more so, FA status, they have an unwritten (and to me anal-retentive, but I've lost that fight long ago) rule that every paragraph should have some sort of footnote. Pain in the butt, but it is the ultimate goal. Basically, we all "know" we should footnote as we go, but so often we don't because we have knowledge in our heads, but when edit wars start, proper footnoting often cools them down, at least to the "agree to disagree" point. Sometimes, anyway. I have no concerns about getting to this particular article any time soon, nothing in there is currently being challenged, but as far as ideal, yeah, well, Appaloosa just went GA with the help of about five people, see how that is done, if you want to compare the ideal. And, for example, a bunch of us are trying to get Thoroughbred ready for GA, but the 3-4 of us working on it don't think it's there yet. For short articles, I recently reviewed volcanic ash for GA and passed it (with the concurrence of some other editors), even though it is short, it is about as complete as you can get on the topic, and so passed the criteria for comprehensive coverage. Hope this helps.
And FYI, so far your edits on this article have been fine. Just have to be real careful about not sounding like promotional copy (and obviously, not putting in links to people's personal stud farms, etc.). Had someone jump on my butt for saying a horse breed had a "beautiful" head, rather than "fine boned" or something; Read Peacock terms to get the idea. Montanabw(talk) 01:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinto[edit]

Since there is no wikilink available for Piebald and Skewbald, should we add a parenthetical "black & white" and "brown & white" to the text? (Although technically I think the term skewbald means any other color (except black) and white). --AeronM (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, I fixed the links. See piebald, skewbald and tricoloured (horse), see also pinto horse, overo, tobiano, sabino horse, rabicano and heck everything is linked from equine coat color. See also Category:Horse coat colors. There are color articles up the wazoo in wikipedia. Finding them is the tricky part. Montanabw(talk) 08:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hands?[edit]

Could someone please provide a conversion of the heights given in "hands" to an SI unit? You have an international readship, after all. I suggest the use of cm, as everywhere else in the world ;-)) Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 (talk) 07:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are slowly working our way through the horse articles to add the convert template to provide both inches and cm. (There are over 300 breed articles alone, they all mention height) The term "hands" is also used in places like the UK that otherwise use the metric system, it's unique to horses. For now, in absence of a conversion note, the term "hands" is wikilinked for further explanation. If anyone wants to help by adding the convert template, all you need to know is that a hand is 4 inches, and the number after the decimal point is inches. So, 14.2 is 14 x 4 + 2 = 58/148cm inches. Then just do {{convert|58|in|cm}} and the result is "14.2 hands (58 inches (150 cm)). We can't figure out how to avoid the double parens, and we have also tried and failed to do a full hands-to-inches and cm template because the decimals aren't in tenths for measuring in hands. So the math and the template is what we are doing for now. All help appreciated! Montanabw(talk) 00:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colours[edit]

It is a bit odd that Buckskin colour is not mentioned as being permitted, when the article is illustrated with images of buckskin horses. As I don't know much about Connemaras, I don't feel I should fix this, in case buckskin is not really permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.46.92 (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a long story, the colors produced by the cream gene being confused with those created by the dun gene and the registry being in denial about that, I'll let the UK editors explain this! Montanabw(talk) 21:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic condition[edit]

Report on autosomal recessive genetic condition in Connemaras, resulting in hoof wall separation at a young age. Needs to be added to article:

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Connemara 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Connemara_pony&oldid=1200175156"