Jump to content

Talk:Konik

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

Origin

[edit]

There seems to be contradictory information on the origin of the Konik. The article tarpan has this to say:

"Polish farmers often crossed the tarpan with their domestic horses. The result was a small horse breed, the Konik. Such animals, as the Konik, and also the Sorraia Horse preserved in Portugal, are now being used to breed back the Tarpan, and to fill in the niche that was left vacant by their extinction in the wild."

(Essentially, that the konik was created by crossbreeding the tarpan, a now-extinct wild horse, with existing horses.)

And the article horse says this...

"The tarpan, Equus ferus ferus, became extinct in 1880. Its genetic line is lost, but its phenotype has been recreated by a "breeding back" process, in which living domesticated horses with primitive features were repeatedly interbred. Thanks to the efforts of the brothers Lutz Heck (director of the Berlin zoo) and Heinz Heck (director of Munich Tierpark Hellabrunn), the resulting Wild Polish Horse or Konik more closely resembles the tarpan than any other living horse."

(Basically, that the konik was bred after the tarpan was extinct, in an attempt to recreate the tarpan.)

If someone with knowledge of this matter could correct whichever article is wrong, and add that information to the article on Konik (and provide a verifiable source for the information, of course), that would be appreciated.

StoneRaven 19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The horse page is! The brothers Heck did not create the Konik, but the Heck horse. The Koniks of today are the result of the breeding program of professor Tadeasz Vetulai of Poznan University. [1] Peter Maas 19:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Koniks continue genetic line of tarpans. They are descended from full blood Tarpans that were given to local peasants by count Zamoyski on the beginning of 19th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeti (talk • contribs) 13:06, August 27, 2007 (UTC)


References and Sources

[edit]

Actually doing things like footnoting your sources would make a big difference here. I strongly recommend proper sources. Remember that information in wikipedia must be verifiable. This article is weak on that point (and I haven't the time to do the research or find the sources). Montanabw(talk) 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am putting the gallery here in case people want to add these in an appropriate way, consistent with the MOS, to the article. Montanabw(talk) 06:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think it was necessary to move this article. Although they might be called "koniki polskie" in Poland, in English and other languages it seems that just "konik" is the most common name (judging by the sources).--Kotniski (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • They have also other names such as Polish primitive horse and Equus caballus gmelini Ant. forma silvatica Vet. in my opinion the name konik is misleading it may leave the readers under the impression that the horse is called konik in Poland and might complicate some scientific work. If we want to move the article when should move it to Polish primitive horse. Mieciu K (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name of an article in English WP shouldn't imply to anyone that the same name is used in any other language. If "konik" is clearly the most common name in English (and it seems to me that it is, from looking at the sources and Googling - far more common than "Polish primitive horse", anyway), then that's the name we should use. We already say in the first line what its Polish name is anyway (and explain the meaning in the first paragraph). Listing at WP:RM for more input.--Kotniski (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kotniski - "Konik" seems to be the most common name in English language publications, and the most common English name is generally the one that we go with. We can certainly have a redirect from "Polish Konik", though. As Kotniski says, we do explain the other names right in the beginning of the article, so I don't think there would be a problem wiht confusion. Also, I'm really not sure what you mean, Mieciu, when you say it "might complicate some scientific work". Could you elaborate further? Dana boomer (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kotniski - While being bold is usually good, whoever did the move (Mieciu?) also just went in there and messed up a bunch of things, tossed tags not ready to be tossed, hid the infobox, changed categories, added red links, and generally created a bit of a mess. [It was me actually, but I believe I reduced the mess - see next thread. Kotniski] As for the actual move, I don't consider it a moral issue, but I DO agree with Dana that this is English Wiki and common English usage is how we title articles. The Konik is not listed in the Kentucky horse park site, which is our usual source for the "right" name of a breed (at least in US English). On the Oklahoma State U site, which we sometimes use, though it is a less desirable source, they use the term "Polish Konik." ( see link here) They also say it is "of Konik type" and also called the " Konik polski (Poland), Panjepferd (German), Polish Pony, Polish Primative (sic)" In Horse Breeds of the World, a book by Nicola Jane Swinney and Bob Langrish (online here), the term "Konik" is used and they do so repeatedly in the context of explaining the relationship to the Tarpan. Given the relative quality of the two sources, the better quality source uses "Konik." So if it's a vote, I say the article should stay "Konik." However, I am open to further explanation about the naming conventions and some additional source material. Montanabw(talk) 06:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reverting

[edit]

Just unreverted - if you look at it more carefully, most of the previous changes were positive. Please don't undo people's useful work like that - if there are specific things you disagree with, just change those things, and leave the rest of the improvements in place. --Kotniski (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, the redlinks were there already, and the infobox is not useful and looks bad with so little info in it (mainly because of the "Breed standards" at the bottom with nothing underneath). Put the cleanup tags back if you like, but I think the article is no longer obviously in need of them.--Kotniski (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've readded the infobox. This is standard across all horse articles, and leaving it in means that people know it's there and can add more info as it is available. Please leave it in the article. Also, if possible, could you put the references (if indeed you are the one that added them) into in-line citations? This way, when other editors are working on the article in the future, they will know what information came from which source. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not do a wholesale revert, only a partial one and spent about a half hour trying to keep what was workable. As far as I could tell, nothing was added to the article content, a few names were corrected, but the infobox was trashed (in spite of VERY CLEAR guidelines at the Horse Breeds taskforce page that all breed articles should have an infobox), plus the article move that was done without any inquiries. The category shift now has screwed up the alphabetizing in the category list if we keep this version (Puts a "P" article in the "K" section). I see that one article that was redlinked is now working, so no worries there. However, I'm putting the tags back on because the article is still very short and superficial, largely unsourced and definitely in the "cleanup" category as compared to other breed articles, any C-Class article needs tags, which help alert wikiproject Equine editors of articles that need help. Sorry to be snarky, but this is a brushfire I don't need at the moment. Montanabw(talk) 22:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Browsers, grazers

[edit]

I removed the mention of deer from the sentence listing grazers. Deer are not grazers; they are browsers. That section has a remaining problem, which is that wisent, cattle, and horses are principally grazers, not browsers, and do not normally suppress second growth unless they have nothing else to eat). Pastures devoted to grazers normally become overgrown with trees unless they are periodically mowed (cut) or burned. --Una Smith (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

1. Re emphasis on UK: as article in present condition is identified as Start-Class, seems not yet appropriate to trim for balance. What's required is more info. re other places where these animals may be found--esp. where site refs can be internally linked. Eg are there other places in Europe? the Americas? What are the principal fns of introducing koniks at these places? Indeed, as article stands, it has, after Polish information, a cast towards Netherlands basis, with UK as add-on. When more info. is supplied, suggest a general introd. be written for Nature Reserves.

2. Re galleries: they sh'dn't to be avoided, but edited, just like texts, to make sure that their images are illustrations to the text, not vanitas efforts. Thus 1st two pictures in konik gallery illus. text by showing herd grazing as part of a natural site--not just group of ponies--then a specimen displaying Physical Characteristics mentioned in article, as existing picture did not even show dorsal stripe. More good pictures need to be added, illustrating other aspects, also site locations. When article is more complete, suggest discuss whether moving illus. into body of text (where formatting issues arise) warranted. Too early now.

Let us work towards removing "Low Importance" label. Alethe (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________________________

OK, here's the deal: 1) Your content was problematic more for tone and creating a laundry list of reserves, both poor form. I'll take another whack at fixing it. Also can't write it like a promotional bruchure; this is an encyslopedia. 2) Galleries are a lazy, sloppy solution to adding images and they encourage "scrapbooking" (adding every possible image to the article). Better to make a chart or integrate photos into various appropriate locations in the article. (Scrapbooking is what Commons is for) There are two images you use, one is poor, the other could be integrated somewhere. 3) The article is start class because it fits the start class criteria (read the criteria, you'll see why) A bit of expansion and more footnoting could bring it up to C-Class, a LOT of footnoting could make it B-class and beyond that we have to throw it into the world of GA review for anything further. (Read the criteria for articles in the Horse Breeds Task Force Section, too) If you want to see an example of a GA-class article on a primitive breed, see Sorraia. 3) Almost all our 350+ breed articles are going to be "low" importance. The Konik is unique and interesting, but not spectacularly important to the wider horse world. IF this one went up to "mid," we'd have to pull dozens more to "mid" because whatever arguments you can come up with could be equally applied to many other articles. (Primitive breed? We got a bunch of those. Endangered? We got a bunch of those, too..."bred back" Tarpan? Got Heck Horse and others there too...) Open to further discussion, but that's my position here.Montanabw(talk) 23:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Konik. 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) 16:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Konik&oldid=1202658514"