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.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire articles
Hello Jim! Thanks for swift reply! What I want to do is to upload 1 or 2 good photos to Wikimedia Commons, thereby making them available also to the other language Wikis, in particular the Swedish one which also contains the non-NF mini pony! As I understand it, that would save us having to upload new pictures to every language version of Wiki, as long as they conform to the copyright policies of Wikimedia Commons.
First stage completed, moved good picture to top, removed mini pony. Will find replacement for wonky middle image later, after browsing your content. Yours? GFDL tag? Might add one of my own, showing competition use rather than natural habitat...
Wilma Sweden00:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I've added a gallery of my NF pony pictures (all from the New Forest), all of which are on Wikimedia Commons with the appropriate copyright. JimChampion21:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
You misunderstand. I'm looking for a reference for the number nine, not for British Isles :-). I've found several websites that seem to list different numbers of breeds. For example, Mountain and moorland lists eight breeds. --Bardcom (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
M&M breeds are mostly a show definition, rare breeds another, so am splitting the difference and tossing the number altogether. The bbc article actually links to ten breeds, though they say nine. Safest to just end this little discussion by tossing the number, I did a bit on other tweaking on the intro. Hope this settles if for now. Montanabw(talk)06:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Unless anyone says otherwise within the next day (or so), I will remove the cleanup tag from the article, having added a heap of inline citations etc. to it. Hopefully this will be OK. And can someone re-assess it, please? ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
You can go ahead and reassess according to the guidelines linked over at WPEQ. We can do our own up through B-class; anything more than that has to go through the GA review (I don't quite know why A-class is also GA-class, but there you have it). We can reassess our own stuff if we don't puff the piece more than deserved. Montanabw(talk)20:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
I had a stroll through the guidelines; I would say this was likely a B-class, so I'll do it as that (if I can work out how, lol!) If anyone disagrees, they can always knock it down to a C.
Need a definition of "youngstock," that's a regional use -- do you mean "colts and fillies" (i.e. under 4 yrs), or something narrower? Or broader? Montanabw(talk)22:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Gah ... not really clearly defined! It's just the youngsters which were bred, not any particular age other than "not mature"! Colts and fillies would do. I not that an IP removed the citation which proved that NFs can compete on equal term s with (and beat) larger equines as being "trivial and promotional" I have re-inserted it. The fact that NFs can do this is one of the major features of the breed - ponies which can carry adults and beat bigger animals, etc. And that example is prob. the most public and best example of them having (verifiably) done so! Major National competition, as part of major international event, etc. I am not feeling charitable ... heh! Pesky (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've done a bit which should put it in perspective (I hope!) The London International is one of the UK's major international events. The YouTube link is to the British Riding Club's channel, so copyright stuff is OK there. (And the NF ponies can be seen in action, obviously, with confirmation that they won it). Pesky (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
PLEASE OH GOD NO NO NO! OPPOSE! OPPOSE! OPPOSE! OPPOSE! WikiProject Equine (WPEQ) has a longstanding consensus on the article naming conventions. We have several HUNDRED horse breed articles and this "to capitalize or not to capitalize" issue comes up over and over and over again. It has gone back and forth for years and never have all the articles been properly renamed when someone comes along and wants to change it again! First off, many breeds have the name "pony" added, some with caps, some without. If you do this, it will affect many of the 350-400 horse breed articles tracked by WPEQ and we have had a stable (pardon the horse pun) consensus on these for at least a couple of years. The consensus is that we use the (parentheses) disambiguator only for named horses (i.e. Secretariat (horse) and then we add "horse" or "pony" without title caps and without disambiguation parentheses to those breeds where the name alone either normally includes the word "horse" or "pony" (i.e. Hackney pony) or where the distinction is needed to prevent confusion with dabs (e.g. Shetland, New Forest, Dartmoor, Eriskay, etc...) We used to capitalize the word "horse" or "pony" if it was part of the registry name, but the caps police said we couldn't do that, so the current consensus is to only capitalize when it would be absolutely idiotic to not include the word "horse" or "pony" in the name (i.e. American Quarter Horse, which no one calls a "quarter" -- but people do call a Shetland pony just a "Shetland".) This is a HUGE question that creates too much drama every time it arises and if it MUST be raised needs to be run past WikiProject Equine and not piecemeal across multiple articles. Please, please, please, withdraw this here. I'm begging you! Montanabw(talk)23:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Latest comment: 9 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion
The animal is typical of those can be found in the actual forest. It may not meet show standards however that is irrelevant since it isn't a breed primary bread for show (consider say Suffolk (sheep) where we quite specifically don't lead with a show quality animal). The photo you support suffers from poor dynamic range (note the odd colouring on the animal's flank), noise and, chromatic aberration (although that seems to have largely been control by the image's low resolution)
You don't understand show condition. That horse is fit and in a glorious show coat, thanks for drawing my attention to the image, I will add it to the article. The background is too "busy" the horse is facing to the right, and the photo obviously not taken in the UK, all of which make it not suitable for the lead, but it does show good conformation quite well. Montanabw(talk)18:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
The point is that it's a poor photo of the horse. It's distorted, the animal's head is bigger than it's butt. The animal is also not fully mature, looks like a yearling or at most a 2-year old. The idea here is to showcase the breed at its best, not the countryside on a sunny day. It doesn't matter how good the color balance is or how blue and pretty the sky is, whoever shot the photo (oh, you did! Gee) doesn't know how to take pictures of horses. The other photo may not have a pretty blue sky, but it balances the horse front to rear, the animal is fully mature, well-built, and though the animal is not posed, it shows good health, and it is in a natural habitat. You also don't know how to spell "bred" and you misspelled "forest" - AND these are photos you have taken yourself, all of which suggests to me that you need to put a leash on your ego and try again next time. Montanabw(talk)22:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Err that's a 50mm lens on a full frame camera. There isn't a combination that will produce a less distorted result. The head appears the size it is because it is closer to the lens. That's just the way the vision works. The idea is not to showcase the breed at its best but instead to show readers what the breed generally looks like. So with that out of the way we are limited to your highly subjective idea of what the animal should look like and the more legitimate issue of the animal's age. As for the sunshine thing while I didn't raise the issue the lack of sunshine is probably the reason for the level of noise and poor dynamic range. Its pretty typical of the result of using a small sensored camera in less than perfect lighting conditions. Your spelling and other flames are merely tiresome. Now you must admit that the lead photos is less than idea while your search on commons hasn't come up with a replacement. If we are going to make any progress you need to state your objections more objectively and stick to talking about horses rather than photography.Geni (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Baloney. For eliminating distortion, you are wrong, it can be done. Easily with the right equipment. You need a telephoto to remove front to back distortion on horses, 100mm -150mm or more. And my dear, you are the one who first raised the technical aspects of the photos, not me. And yes, the idea actually IS to provide as good-conformed an individual as can be found in a copyright-free image that also typifies the breed. (not easy to do) There is far less "subjectivity" to this than you think; good conformation is good conformation. Good quality photos from a technical viewpoint are nice, but not at the expense of the quality of the animal itself. Your little horse has a sweet face (is he yours?) but he is long in the back, short in the hip, goose-rumped, rough-coupled, short in the neck (though a lot of these ponies are), and is standing in a way that makes him look both sickle-hocked and butt-high. (The hind leg conformation problem is likely in part due to the fact that his hind toes are terribly overgrown) Sorry, but you asked. He does look like he has a decent shoulder and when he gets older may fill out in the chest; he may outgrow some of his awkwardness when he is fully grown. In contrast, the New Forest Pony in the current lead is similarly unposed and in his natural habitat, but is fully mature, has good body balance, well-proportioned and taken at an angle that, while there is some distortion and it's not a perfect image, it is not real obvious nor does it make the horse look like it has terrible conformation. Now your own little pony has a cute face, looks friendly and I'm sure you must love him very much, but while I love my horses too, I don't try to make them the lead image in an article about their breed when better photos exist. The side shot is a better one, and if you are sincere about getting a better photo for the lead, here is what you need to do:
Shoot the horse so he's standing uphill, not downhill
Find a full-grown horse in good condition that is well-balanced and has good general conformation (doesn't have to be perfect).
Find a horse that is of truly good quality (these ponies are semi-feral and their breeding is managed, so clearly, their breeders and owners care about quality. You don't have to have the show champion, but don't embarass people)
For the lead image in a breed article on wikipedia, we ideally like to have the horse facing left - "into" the article (though that's a minor nitpick if the animal is otherwise excellent)
Take the image so distortion is hidden or minimized, show the horse to its best advantage
After that, things like good technical quality of the image are nice, but they are frosting on the cake. Grooming is helpful, but not required, particularly for these semi-feral ponies;
If you weren't promoting your own photos, I'd be a little more sympathetic to you, but as you are pushing your own personal agenda here, I'm not. If you can meet an objective standard, we can discuss changing the photo. But until I see evidence of this, continued attempts to put up a photo of the same horse and calling all attempts to explain things to you "tiresome" is not getting you anywhere. All that said, the horse is a great example of a horse showing both roan and rabicano traits, and I added the image here: Roan_(horse)#Rabicano_vs._roanMontanabw(talk)18:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I am fine with the lead image that exists, as it shows a good-quality animal, even if the pose is casual and the day is cloudy. The rest of these show hairy, pot-bellied, poorly-conformed animals in bright sunlight. Montanabw(talk)01:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Why the hostility? It is not like I was inserting them into the article before checking. Perhaps you need a rest. While this little fellow may not a be a show pony, or conform to some standard, it is very representative of just about every pony we have seen wandering in the New Forest. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
You are promoting your own photos, that's just tacky, which is why I'm a little sharp with you; it's one thing when there are no images and you have to go take your own to illustrate something (where sometimes even a poor photo is better than none) it's another to insist on replacing existing photos with inferior ones just because you took them. I'm not intending to hurt your feelings, so I will apologize if I was a bit sharp, but you are the second person to come into this particular article and do this; it's getting a bit wearisome. For another thing, while this might be a pony wandering around in the New Forest, he doesn't look like a horse that meets the breed standard, which is, in fact what this article is about - the breed! Further, that particular pony appears to be suffering from some odd form of dwarfism judging by the bizarre shortness of his neck; the little roan in the photos above, while young and thin, is a far better-quality animal than this one. Montanabw(talk)06:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Montanabw, you are exhibiting all the signs of a serious case of WP:OWN and being rather rude in the process. A user, likely a photographer given the technical excellence of the images presented, contributes through images they way you do with text. Those are both legitimate endeavours yet he gets called tacky. Are you tacky for contributing text to an article you have interest in? Given he actually checked with the involved editors if the pictures he has are suitable, I can't imagine how you would ever find this tiresome. Do you really expect every photographer to know about horse confirmation? That is just silly. You certainly have failed AGF standards here and should take a moment to reflect how you interact with your fellow contributors. 131.137.245.209 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
This is a featured article that has appeared on the main page as Today's featured article - with the lead image that is currently there. The two images submitted above might have nice color, but they do not illustrate what the New Forest Pony breed standard is - which IS what this article is about. The chestnut animal is deformed, possibly suffering from some form of dwarfism (its neck is bizarrely short) and the other (the bay) had horrible distortion, the shot was made with a wide-angle lens of some sort and the head of the animal was huge, while the rear end was tiny - the opposite of what is desired in a horse. Both are in very rough condition and neither resembles a registered New Forest Pony. The lead editor of this article, who brought it to FA status is not active on wikipedia at present, and if you really insist on talking to "involved" editors, then the proper forum is WikiProject Equine. Montanabw(talk)19:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
So, are you justifying your rudeness through righteousness or simply refusing to accept you could have handled this better from the start? Simply stating: Sorry, your images would not be suitable for this particular article. While of high resolution and quality they do not represent the breed standard we need. However, the one of the pony exhibiting the flehman response might be useful to that article. If you do have an image of a breed standard pony (see above discussion) we would be glad to review it, as the lead image is not ideal. Thanks. Would that have been any more difficult that laying down snark and ridicule? 131.137.245.206 (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
What Montanabw said. I know nothing about horses, but I can see very clearly that Montanabw isn't trying to own anything. As for any perceived rudeness, get off your high horse and try assuming good faith of Montanabw. How exactly either of those photos might improve on what is already in the article, where there are already plenty of images, I cannot imagine. Change isn't necessarily a bad thing, but those two? Nortonius (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Obviously I disagree. This is about the quality of his response not the suitability of the images. Besides, these horeses are rather short according to the article. 131.137.245.206 (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
If it's me someone is upset with, then take it to the nearest drama board, not here. Here, I'm simply tired of people who have no clue what a good horse looks like trying to promote their OWN photos with ignorant claims that because it's their photo and they think it's a cute pony, that it should be the lead image, especially when they say things like "who cares if it meets the breed standard." THIS is what a quality New Forest Pony is supposed to look like, (yes, it's small, they aren't warmbloods, for pete's sake!) and the only reason this particular photo of a quality show pony is not the lead image is because the horse is standing funny and isn't even in England, let alone the New Forest; the lead image shows a quality animal in its home country in a more natural setting, but in its summer coat and looking like a horse the people who own and breed them are aiming for. Could a better photo be out there? Sure. Are these it? No. Montanabw(talk)22:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
You know, you DO seem to be listening to some good advice even if are not happy with me; your photo of the little gray is the best of the lot, he's still in a winter hair coat, but he's mature, in good flesh, reasonably well-conformed, and the three-quarter front angle minimizes distortion. Had the photo been shot after he shed his winter coat and was in his summer coat and if his eyes were open it would almost be a contender for the lead, though quality of the animal hard to tell under all that hair. It is suitable for adding to the article, see where I put it in. Montanabw(talk)02:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Can I just suggest a tweak to the caption: at the time of writing it says "near Dorset", but Dorset is a county, so that should be "in Dorset" (if correct). Nortonius (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
It seemed to me a little dubious, despite the image name (pic), that this picture was taken in Dorset, since it looks like a typical image of a New Forest pony in the New Forest (and thus in Hampshire). So for now I've removed the claim in the caption that the pony is "in Dorset". Pasicles (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on New Forest 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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on New Forest 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.
Done I've added one, but there are more. They really aren't that hard to find. Waggers (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
original
alt
other ponies are available
