Talk:Miniature horse

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

Annoying Redirect[edit]

I read this page, and then I followed a link over to read the article about ponies. That article mentioned miniature horses and miniature ponies, so I clicked the link for miniature ponies, and I ended up right back here. This page does not talk about miniature ponies as anything distinct from miniature horses, so I'm annoyed, but I don't know what ought to be done about it. Are miniature ponies something different than miniature horses? -ErinHowarth (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with minis are really just little tiny equines, but what is called "miniature horse" has more horse-like features, and a "miniature pony" would be more pony-like in proportion. You can compare pictures of American Miniature Horse and Mini Shetlans Pony for example to see the difference. Pitke (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Miniature horse people basically go ballistic if you dare to call their little dears "ponies." (I've judged minis. I've read the breed standard, I've seen the wide range of body types that's actually out there. They ALL have pony breeding and often a pony phenotype even though the breeders and breed standard vehemently deny this. Some of them have so much dwarfism that they actually look like sausages with legs, but that's another problem...) Europeans acknowledge the existence of a "mini" Shetland, but trust me, it's better to just have them all in one place. Montanabw(talk) 21:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw is right. White Arabian mare (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance Animals[edit]

The information regarding mini horses as assistance animals in the US seems to be misleading. Taken from the Code of Federal Regulations:

"28 C.F.R. § 35.136 Service Animals
(i) Miniature horses.
(1) Reasonable modifications. A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability.
(2) Assessment factors. In determining whether reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures can be made to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility, a public entity shall consider--
(i) The type, size, and weight of the miniature horse and whether the facility can accommodate these features;
(ii) Whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse;
(iii) Whether the miniature horse is housebroken; and
(iv) Whether the miniature horse's presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation.
(3) Other requirements. Paragraphs 35.136(c) through (h) of this section, which apply to service animals, shall also apply to miniature horses."


I'd make the changes myself, but don't have the time to read up on the proper way to do it, and how to cite, etc. So, if anyone cares enough to edit it for accuracy, knock yourself out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.33.119 (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about you grab the text that's troublesome, copy it here and rewrite it here? Then we others can do the cleanup and pop it back in when it's done up nicely. Montanabw(talk) 04:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance animal rewrite mini-sandbox

(Put text between lines, all can tweak)


Sources[edit]

Fight or flight[edit]

Is it correct to say that horses "are prey animals, with a fight-or-flight instinct". I suggest instead saying "horses have a flight instinct". They do not have a fight instinct.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do. Horses would prefer to use the flight instinct (run away from danger). However, if they can't (they're cornered, whatever), they'll fight. This is described in more depth in the horse behavior article, I believe. Dana boomer (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horses can and will fight if they feel threatened. A mare will protect her foal, and a stallion will protect his band of mares. White Arabian mare (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metric units[edit]

Metric units were given priority here by Yowanvista, who was reverted by Montanabw, who also reverted me when I restored Yowanvista's edit, with an edit summary that cites WP:SYNTH. I don't see that edit-warring is likely to resolve anything, so here's the discussion: WP:SYNTH is specific on the subject of units: "Routine calculations do not count as original research". WP:UNIT is less specific: "the main unit is generally an SI unit or a non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI"; there are exceptions for articles closely connected with the USA and the UK, which obviously this one is not. There is also a different guideline for science-related articles, which this one arguably is:

"In science-related articles: generally use only SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, and such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic. Supplying parenthetical US Customary or imperial equivalents (see below) is not required unless there is some special reason to do so."

I think the question is not whether customary units should come first or not, but whether they should be here at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JLAN, do we have to go through all of this again? You have been told, over and over again, by a number of editors, in a number of different venues, that for horse articles it is standard to have hands, centimeters and inches all given. If you really want to re-litigate this, take it to a central venue, rather than picking at it on individual pages. I'd prefer you didn't, because it's a discussion we've all had before and it's just a giant headache, but it's your decision. Dana boomer (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto to Dana. But I appreciate JLAN taking this to discussion and that there is a respectful tone so far. In the quote above, with hands there is "some special reason to do so." Hands is conventional, found in reliable-source discussions, and more to the point, we have gone through some extensive work on the convert templates just so that someone who chooses to put centimeters first for articles where they are the lead editor can now do so AND also have a hands and inches conversion. This horse has been beaten to death. Montanabw(talk) 17:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding here on the part of Montanabw: that the choice of units, and priority of units, in an article is determined by the "lead editor" (whatever that may be supposed to be) according to his or her personal whim, perhaps in the same way that reference format, date format or WP:ENGVAR are established by the first substantial contributor. That simply is not so. The use of units is covered by WP:UNIT, a part of the Manual of Style, which specifically provides for metric units to be the primary unit in almost all articles (those with strong regional connections to the US or the UK being an exception). There'd need to be convincing reasons for ignoring that in this case, which obviously has no particular connection to either of those countries; Yowanvista's edit is indubitably correct. Please don't tell me I need to start an RfC for something as obvious as this?
A more interesting question is whether horse-breeding articles are considered "science-related", in which case metric units would be the only units used. I think they are. As a single example, I read here that "Shire horse has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria". One might think that could be because it is covered by WikiProject Agriculture, but – unaccountably – it has not been added to that project.
Yes, Dana boomer, I have heard that said a good number of times; and always by one or other of the same two editors. What I've never yet heard is any support for it from other editors in general or from the MOS in particular. Perhaps you would, this time, be kind enough to point me to where in WP:UNIT it says that one customary unit in use in both the US and the UK should be converted into another such customary unit (obviously this is not the same case as, say, stones for bodyweight)? And if you cannot, then perhaps you should recognise that this is your personal preference, and cease trying to impose it on others? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should probably re-read the RFC you started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Equine/Archive_5#RFC:_what_units_should_be_used_for_horse_and_pony_heights.3F. Some comments from that RFC:
  • "Hands should be the first unit used in a horse measurement...but conversions should also be made into centimetres and inches." - Cgoodwin
  • "Hands should be the default, with other units added with the template." - Intothatdarkness
  • "Hands are used here in Oz, and should be the first unit used in a horse measurement - I do think it needs conversion to other units" - Casliber
  • "using hands (converted to other units ALWAYS) should be the presumption and exceptions would need consensus" - Ealdgyth
  • "[hands] should be the standard, first, measurement, with the hands template giving the other measurements." - ThatPeskyCommoner
Would you like me to keep going? That's five editors besides Montanabw and myself, from an official RFC. Granted, consensus can change, so if you would like to start a new RFC on the same topic, no one is going to stop you. Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to drop this stick. JLAN, in "your" articles, several technologically-inclined editors went to great difficulty to create an effective three-way conversion so that you can put measurements in SI units first, with the conversion to follow. We have bent over backwards to work with you and reach a compromise on this issue. As for the "SI-first" argument, that was settled by RfC almost two years ago. WP:UNIT clearly states: "In science-related articles: generally use only SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, and such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic." We've been there, done that. You might note that non-SI measurements are used in many other places; the carat (mass) and the karat, the knot, the troy ounce, and if I am not mistaken, I think jockeys in the UK are weighed in stone. Montanabw(talk) 17:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and JLAN, you know damn well there isn't a lot of support for this outside WPEQ, either, per this Montanabw(talk) 17:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DNA test for dwarfism gene[edit]

@Dana boomer: We need to make this article one for a GA push. What say you? Montanabw(talk) 19:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like fun. I've spent a bit of time on it now (and integrated the above article), but it still needs a lot more work. I'll probably swing back through tonight and do some more work. References need checking for RS, external links need a trim, and the first and third subsections of the Controversies section need more refs... Dana boomer (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken another run through, and now everything through the Uses section is fully referenced to reliable sources. It probably needs expanding and tweaking, but it's a solid base. Would you want to take a first run through the controversies sections? I've tossed a bunch of cn and rs tags in - basically, every ref I haven't formatted needs to be replaced, plus there's another ref that I didn't tag, but added a hidden comment to. If you want to take a run through these, we should be able to then step back and take a look and see where we need to add/subtract/move around stuff... Dana boomer (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WIll do, it's going to be a little slow because I am out of town and am not online with time to sit and think much... but I will do this! Montanabw(talk) 20:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Dana, am a bit concerned about the removal of material with sources you are concerned about. Would prefer to see this stuff tagged with {{unreliable source}} or {[dubious]] so it can be more closely assessed; some is probably tossable, but other stuff can be verified elsewhere. I hate to keep going back to the Hedricks well, sometimes these breed sites are actually very reliable even if they also have ads. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 22:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think I tossed much, if anything, in my work? Maybe a couple of trivia bits in the Registration section, but I think I did more expanding and moving around then anything else. In the controversies sections, AFAIK, I didn't remove any information, just tagged for un-RS and cn. I was looking for some stuff this morning to source the Horse or pony section and found some good stuff on Google Books. Breed associations are also fine. As for the ones I tagged - mini-horse.org is a blog, angelfire sites are never reliable (if the author is an expert, their info can be found elsewhere), and a horse rescue is about the same caliber as a breeding barn, which we almost never use. Google Books, The Horse, etc. have a lot and are going to be much better sources - we can do much better than a bunch of blogs and personal sites. It all has to be either properly sourced (my preference) or tossed if we're going to GAN, though. Dana boomer (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was mostly the mini-horse site and the bit on South Africa - but it's been a few years since I have taken a serious look at the article. Seems like once upon a time, I had a spat with someone who was upset about international focus and I remember doing some digging into info from around the world (the horse/pony question was tied up in the discussion). Anyway, seems that the mini-horse site had reliable stuff at the time, not easily found elsewhere. Beyond that, I agree with you on the sources as far as what is RS. Montanabw(talk) 04:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean about South Africa? It's still in the history section, although I expanded and tweaked it a bit... I think the mini-horse site is going to be fairly easy to replace...I was able to replace four un-RS sources in one swoop today with an article from The Horse - man, I love that site. Also did a bit of expanding in a couple other sections with some good sources I found while looking for other stuff... Dana boomer (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good; my cataract is sometimes making it hard for me to sort through big changes and rearranges, it was moved and I couldn't find where it went. You are doing fine. I'm out of town and not in my usual computer setup, so the vision thing is particularly bothersome to me at the moment. Aging sucks. Montanabw(talk) 06:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nn.erhnvkj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.11.166 (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian type Minis[edit]

There should be a note in the conformation section about how many Minis, especially those bred within the last ten years or so, have Arabian conformation, with dished faces, flat croups and crested necks. I had added a sentence or two about that, but somebody removed them. White Arabian mare (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I probably did so; we don't want to confuse these with real Arabians (they've been showing them with Arab tack for at least 20 years that I know of). Also, and more important, if we are going to add material like that, we need to go out and find sources to verify the information. (See WP:RS) If you can find articles on breeding to a more Arabian look, feelfree to post them here and we can see if we can work that into the article. Montanabw(talk) 04:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will see if I can find any. I've seen ads for Minis that you'd swear were Arabians if there wasn't a human in the picture as a size reference, and the stallion in the pic at the top of that section has Arabian conformation. White Arabian mare (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I've judged them (not often) I see a lot of broad foreheads and dishes, but that could be other pony influence... I'm not in a hurry to compare minis to Arabians due to the problems minis have with dwarfism and other problems. There isn't any close-up Arabian breeding in them; they are more like comparing a Shetland Sheepdog to a Rough Collie; a great example of how selective breeding can imitate a phenotype even when the original genes are waaaaaay back.  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 01:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pony differentiation[edit]

The lead should include a brief description differentiating ponies from miniature horses. Often a reader just needs to find out if this is the correct article for the desired information -- or if another article is more appropriate. If possible, please clarify this in the lead (I have read the entire article and am still unsure). Thanks, ~107.15.152.93 (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Miniature horse. 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) 01:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of American Miniature Horse into Miniature horse[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge, as American Miniature Horse is a notable subset of Miniature horse warranting separate discussion. Klbrain (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content fork. Doesn't need two articles. Put American MH into Miniature Horse. Separate registries for different countries doesn't make a separate breed for encyclopedic purposes. We don't have separate dog or cat breed articles by country even though there are multiple registries, so why would we do that with horse breeds. See as examples Border Collie and Persian cat. Use similar logic, standards, and formats. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, oppose – not a content fork, one is a general page about a type of horse found in many parts of the world, the other a page on one of the several distinct breeds within that type (of which the most significant by far is the Falabella). Why is the article on the American breed proposed for merging while those on other miniature breeds are not? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, I was editing List of North American horse breeds and reading its talk page—not looking at miniature breeds. And most of the content of AMH came from MH in the first place; but you would know that because I see you're the editor who did that. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose this too. American Miniatures are a sub-group of Miniature horses. Showing classes sometimes specify one or the other in the UK and handlers are very vocal on the subject of how the American Miniature has changed the breed type and not for the better. Indie (talk) 14:50, 11 December 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:Miniature_horse&oldid=1197639884"