Talk:Konik

message: 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)
thread_title:  References and Sources 

message: Move Parsecboy (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Requested move

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reverting

message: 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)
thread_title:  Browsers, grazers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Gallery &c reversion

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090113095937/http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/tarpan.htm to http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/tarpan.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified