This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chincoteague pony article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Chincoteague pony has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | On 3 November 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Chincoteague Pony to Chincoteague pony. The result of the discussion was moved. |
We need sources here! If the breed reports and the National Geographic article can be properly referenced, that would be awesome. If you're unsure of how to reference them, leave a message here and we can arrange something
ManicParroT 21:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The image File:Misty of Chincoteague cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 08:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The way this article is currently written, it does not seem to make it clear that there are two groups of ponies on Assateague that do not intermingle (there is a fence at the state line), that only the Virginia group is referred to as Chincoteague Ponies, and that only the Virginia group is rounded up for Pony Penning. I am going to make some attempt at clarifying this, but I think additional clarification will still be needed. AtxApril ( talk) 18:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Dana, nice job adding all the great new material. I did go back in and restore some of my earlier material that got dumped and did a little rearranging of everything. Overall, I hope that my edits to your work were helpful and that I didn't misalign any citations in the process or otherwise screw things up too much. A couple of my edit summaries may have been a little grumpy-sounding, if so mea culpa. I threw in some stuff I had researched on Assateague Island, and I also restored some of the stuff that came out of the Maryland side's info. Quite some time back someone was kind of unhappy that MD wasn't getting a fair shake. Incidentally, I deleted phrasing that suggested that the population co-arose on both islands. if we are going to discuss the domesticated ponies on Chincoteague, we'll need some more specific info, as most sources I've seen suggest most of the foundation stock came from the feral animals on Assateague. Montanabw (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
New study, needs additional verification: http://horsetalk.co.nz/2015/07/27/mystery-solved-assateague-islands-wild-ponies-spanish-origins/#axzz3h6lsYQXH Montanabw (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chincoteague 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Chincoteague 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chincoteague 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
This National Geographic article reports on genetic links between the Chincoteague ponies and horses raised by Spanish settlers in Haiti. Can anybody find an academic source to back this up?
-- Stephen C Wells ( talk) 23:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- In a study published today in the journal PLOS One, researchers posit that the tooth belonged to a cousin of the ponies roving Virginia and Maryland's barrier islands.
- Importantly, both the Caribbean horse and Chincoteague ponies share an evolutionary lineage that originated in Bronze Age Spain, says study co-author Nicolas Delsol, a zooarchaeologist at the University of Florida.
- This paper presents the mitochondrial genome of a late 16th century horse from the Spanish colonial site of Puerto Real (northern Haiti).
- It represents the earliest complete mitogenome of a post-Columbian domestic horse in the Western Hemisphere offering a unique opportunity to clarify the phylogeographic history of this species in the Americas.
- Our data supports the hypothesis of an Iberian origin for this early translocated individual and clarifies its phylogenetic relationship with modern breeds in the Americas.
I'm no expert on this subject, but the following letter suggests that the proper breed and page title here is Chincoteague pony.
The only portions of animal breeds that should be capitalized are words that are otherwise proper nouns. Thus, German shepherds, Bernese mountain dogs, Dalmatians, Labrador retrievers, golden retrievers, Doberman pinschers, dachshunds, English bulldogs, boxers, Ayrshire cattle, longhorn cattle, thoroughbred horses, Shetland ponies, and so on, are the correct terms. Some are not so obvious and need to be researched, such as cairn terriers and papillons. Cairn refers to a pile of rocks and not a place. Papillon is French for butterfly.
Note also that many inbound links have already adopted "Chincoteague pony" orthography. — MaxEnt 00:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Three or four minor edits after first publication.
I found the following to be a fascinating read:
In her dissertation, Collin's stated purpose is to "deconstruct the history of the horse in the Americas and its relationship with the Indigenous Peoples". She seems to begin with a conclusion—that there is a "Western science" seeking to "disregard, purposefully exclude, and reconfigure" the traditional knowledge of Native Americans. Ultimately, she'd like to "reconstruct the history of the horse in the Americas in a way that is unbiased and accurate".
- ...
What she noticeably omits in this literature review are biological, paleontological, and genetic sources of information.
If one has a hypothesis regarding the existence of a mammalian species, one expects these in the literature review.
- ...
Collin's dissertation cites Ancient Origins, Richard Thornton, and Dell Dowdell, and each of these sources variously or indirectly promote ideas about Native Americans which can be considered racist.
Dell Dowdell, the creator of nephicode.com, actively promotes the notion that Native Americans are the descendants of white Mormons and he believes the Earth is only as old as one of the cave paintings mentioned earlier in this article.
Conspiracy theorist Richard Thornton publishes pseudoarchaeological claims of Maya settlements in Georgia.
And Ancient Origins is a website that traffics in all manner of fake, fraudulent, and fantastic archaeological news, books, and media for profit. Authors they promote range from racists to general conspiracy theorists.
Coming across any one of these in a dissertation for a PhD should be enough to put all that dissertation's sources in question. There were, perhaps, a dozen or more questionable sources of this caliber.
I'm certainly not categorically opposed to the idea that Equus may have survived the Pleistocene extinction and continues even today. This, I think is a perfectly valid, scientific hypothesis.
But it's one that should be tested using science. Not "Western science". Not through the lens of non-indigenous academia. It should simply be tested with science, a set of methods available to anyone willing to use them regardless of geographic origin, cultural affiliation, or ethnic heritage.
More informally, this thesis is dissected here:
She has sufficient credibility with some people, such as her advisors, that she got a Ph.D. from the University of Alaska on this topic and is now engaged in post-doctoral research.
Other people find her research strained and declare her to have no credibility.
Some of them who? are highly respected, so their words carry weight, but while some might declare her to have no credibility, they do not speak for everyone.
- ...
Some people who? feel that the Spanish must have left them there from their previous explorations, but Spanish explorers had very few horses with them (so few, we even know many of the horse's names!), they took very good care of those precious horses and accounted for them carefully.
They didn't escape to reproduce so this does not seem like a good source for a coastal horse in that time frame.
There were some herds that were growing in Northern and New Mexico, but for those horses to make it to the Pacific is questionable because of the extreme and difficult deserts in the way.
That Spanish horses were not readily available to populate the area may be the reason that when the discovery was reported in the San Diego Union-Tribune, some scientists who? were quoted that this might be possible evidence of pre-Columbian horses.
Quoted material mildly edited for consistency and to trim clutter.
{{Who}} added because Wikipedia is far from the worst offender.
What I actually think about this tempest in a continental teacup is that's it's a harbinger of the continued postmodern siloization of peer review; no matter how ridiculous your thesis document, if you can find a silo of established academics who like the cut of your gibber, you can mint yourself a nice, eternal PhD.
At maximal scale, should things continue along these lines, this eventually becomes an existential threat to Wikipedia itself: ongoing silo wars would have no consensual bottom even for the basic Wikipedia synopsis. — MaxEnt 01:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. The conversation here has run its course. The consistency of the usage of the capitalised form had been disputed before the first close; the referenced breed standard has also been questioned to be WP:UGC/ WP:SPS after the first close. I see no disagreement in the proposed title with the applicability of MOS:LIFE. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky ( talk) 18:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Chincoteague Pony → Chincoteague pony – In sources, pony is usually lowercase after Chincoteague; per MOS:CAPS, that's what WP should use for the title. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans ( talk) 18:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans ( talk) 19:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Here are some other names that also occur:
I'd support a move to either of the last two if there's consensus for that. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
References
A species term appended at the end for disambiguation ("cat", "hound", "horse", "swine", etc.) should not be capitalized, unless it is a part of the breed name itself and is consistently presented that way in the breed standard(s) (rare cases include Norwegian Forest Cat and American Quarter Horse).Neither "hound" nor "swine" are in the same class as words substituting for species names, so there is no question that MOS:LIFE's lower-casing in this regard also encompasses "pony", a substitute for "horse" when the variety is short. I find Justlettersandnumbers's sudden resistance to the application of MOS:LIFE (in multiple ways even!) exceedingly strange, because this editor participated heavily in the VPPOL RfC that lead to MOS:LIFE saying what it does today, including permitting limited forms of capitalization for established, standardized breeds, not for landraces, and not for terms like "pony" and "horse" except in unusual cases of extreme ambiguity, and even then only when supported by the preponderance of the source material. That was a hard-won consensus, against considerable opposition (i.e., a preference to lower-case everything but proper names of places and the like). This remains a rather fragile consensus, and JLAN turning against it out of the blue is quixotic at best, since a new RfC on the matter would be fairly likely to conclude against any special allowances for breeds at all since independent source support for such capitalization is quite weak (it's a habit primarily found in breeder and fancier materials, not newspapers, encyclopedias, etc.). PPS: The first example at MOS:LIFE's material on breeds has been corrected to reflect that the article moved (again). The fact that an MoS line-item might not be updated quickly after a page move does not magically invalidate the MoS. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chincoteague pony article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Chincoteague pony has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | On 3 November 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Chincoteague Pony to Chincoteague pony. The result of the discussion was moved. |
We need sources here! If the breed reports and the National Geographic article can be properly referenced, that would be awesome. If you're unsure of how to reference them, leave a message here and we can arrange something
ManicParroT 21:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The image File:Misty of Chincoteague cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 08:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The way this article is currently written, it does not seem to make it clear that there are two groups of ponies on Assateague that do not intermingle (there is a fence at the state line), that only the Virginia group is referred to as Chincoteague Ponies, and that only the Virginia group is rounded up for Pony Penning. I am going to make some attempt at clarifying this, but I think additional clarification will still be needed. AtxApril ( talk) 18:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Dana, nice job adding all the great new material. I did go back in and restore some of my earlier material that got dumped and did a little rearranging of everything. Overall, I hope that my edits to your work were helpful and that I didn't misalign any citations in the process or otherwise screw things up too much. A couple of my edit summaries may have been a little grumpy-sounding, if so mea culpa. I threw in some stuff I had researched on Assateague Island, and I also restored some of the stuff that came out of the Maryland side's info. Quite some time back someone was kind of unhappy that MD wasn't getting a fair shake. Incidentally, I deleted phrasing that suggested that the population co-arose on both islands. if we are going to discuss the domesticated ponies on Chincoteague, we'll need some more specific info, as most sources I've seen suggest most of the foundation stock came from the feral animals on Assateague. Montanabw (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
New study, needs additional verification: http://horsetalk.co.nz/2015/07/27/mystery-solved-assateague-islands-wild-ponies-spanish-origins/#axzz3h6lsYQXH Montanabw (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chincoteague 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Chincoteague 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chincoteague 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
This National Geographic article reports on genetic links between the Chincoteague ponies and horses raised by Spanish settlers in Haiti. Can anybody find an academic source to back this up?
-- Stephen C Wells ( talk) 23:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- In a study published today in the journal PLOS One, researchers posit that the tooth belonged to a cousin of the ponies roving Virginia and Maryland's barrier islands.
- Importantly, both the Caribbean horse and Chincoteague ponies share an evolutionary lineage that originated in Bronze Age Spain, says study co-author Nicolas Delsol, a zooarchaeologist at the University of Florida.
- This paper presents the mitochondrial genome of a late 16th century horse from the Spanish colonial site of Puerto Real (northern Haiti).
- It represents the earliest complete mitogenome of a post-Columbian domestic horse in the Western Hemisphere offering a unique opportunity to clarify the phylogeographic history of this species in the Americas.
- Our data supports the hypothesis of an Iberian origin for this early translocated individual and clarifies its phylogenetic relationship with modern breeds in the Americas.
I'm no expert on this subject, but the following letter suggests that the proper breed and page title here is Chincoteague pony.
The only portions of animal breeds that should be capitalized are words that are otherwise proper nouns. Thus, German shepherds, Bernese mountain dogs, Dalmatians, Labrador retrievers, golden retrievers, Doberman pinschers, dachshunds, English bulldogs, boxers, Ayrshire cattle, longhorn cattle, thoroughbred horses, Shetland ponies, and so on, are the correct terms. Some are not so obvious and need to be researched, such as cairn terriers and papillons. Cairn refers to a pile of rocks and not a place. Papillon is French for butterfly.
Note also that many inbound links have already adopted "Chincoteague pony" orthography. — MaxEnt 00:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Three or four minor edits after first publication.
I found the following to be a fascinating read:
In her dissertation, Collin's stated purpose is to "deconstruct the history of the horse in the Americas and its relationship with the Indigenous Peoples". She seems to begin with a conclusion—that there is a "Western science" seeking to "disregard, purposefully exclude, and reconfigure" the traditional knowledge of Native Americans. Ultimately, she'd like to "reconstruct the history of the horse in the Americas in a way that is unbiased and accurate".
- ...
What she noticeably omits in this literature review are biological, paleontological, and genetic sources of information.
If one has a hypothesis regarding the existence of a mammalian species, one expects these in the literature review.
- ...
Collin's dissertation cites Ancient Origins, Richard Thornton, and Dell Dowdell, and each of these sources variously or indirectly promote ideas about Native Americans which can be considered racist.
Dell Dowdell, the creator of nephicode.com, actively promotes the notion that Native Americans are the descendants of white Mormons and he believes the Earth is only as old as one of the cave paintings mentioned earlier in this article.
Conspiracy theorist Richard Thornton publishes pseudoarchaeological claims of Maya settlements in Georgia.
And Ancient Origins is a website that traffics in all manner of fake, fraudulent, and fantastic archaeological news, books, and media for profit. Authors they promote range from racists to general conspiracy theorists.
Coming across any one of these in a dissertation for a PhD should be enough to put all that dissertation's sources in question. There were, perhaps, a dozen or more questionable sources of this caliber.
I'm certainly not categorically opposed to the idea that Equus may have survived the Pleistocene extinction and continues even today. This, I think is a perfectly valid, scientific hypothesis.
But it's one that should be tested using science. Not "Western science". Not through the lens of non-indigenous academia. It should simply be tested with science, a set of methods available to anyone willing to use them regardless of geographic origin, cultural affiliation, or ethnic heritage.
More informally, this thesis is dissected here:
She has sufficient credibility with some people, such as her advisors, that she got a Ph.D. from the University of Alaska on this topic and is now engaged in post-doctoral research.
Other people find her research strained and declare her to have no credibility.
Some of them who? are highly respected, so their words carry weight, but while some might declare her to have no credibility, they do not speak for everyone.
- ...
Some people who? feel that the Spanish must have left them there from their previous explorations, but Spanish explorers had very few horses with them (so few, we even know many of the horse's names!), they took very good care of those precious horses and accounted for them carefully.
They didn't escape to reproduce so this does not seem like a good source for a coastal horse in that time frame.
There were some herds that were growing in Northern and New Mexico, but for those horses to make it to the Pacific is questionable because of the extreme and difficult deserts in the way.
That Spanish horses were not readily available to populate the area may be the reason that when the discovery was reported in the San Diego Union-Tribune, some scientists who? were quoted that this might be possible evidence of pre-Columbian horses.
Quoted material mildly edited for consistency and to trim clutter.
{{Who}} added because Wikipedia is far from the worst offender.
What I actually think about this tempest in a continental teacup is that's it's a harbinger of the continued postmodern siloization of peer review; no matter how ridiculous your thesis document, if you can find a silo of established academics who like the cut of your gibber, you can mint yourself a nice, eternal PhD.
At maximal scale, should things continue along these lines, this eventually becomes an existential threat to Wikipedia itself: ongoing silo wars would have no consensual bottom even for the basic Wikipedia synopsis. — MaxEnt 01:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. The conversation here has run its course. The consistency of the usage of the capitalised form had been disputed before the first close; the referenced breed standard has also been questioned to be WP:UGC/ WP:SPS after the first close. I see no disagreement in the proposed title with the applicability of MOS:LIFE. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky ( talk) 18:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Chincoteague Pony → Chincoteague pony – In sources, pony is usually lowercase after Chincoteague; per MOS:CAPS, that's what WP should use for the title. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans ( talk) 18:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans ( talk) 19:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Here are some other names that also occur:
I'd support a move to either of the last two if there's consensus for that. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
References
A species term appended at the end for disambiguation ("cat", "hound", "horse", "swine", etc.) should not be capitalized, unless it is a part of the breed name itself and is consistently presented that way in the breed standard(s) (rare cases include Norwegian Forest Cat and American Quarter Horse).Neither "hound" nor "swine" are in the same class as words substituting for species names, so there is no question that MOS:LIFE's lower-casing in this regard also encompasses "pony", a substitute for "horse" when the variety is short. I find Justlettersandnumbers's sudden resistance to the application of MOS:LIFE (in multiple ways even!) exceedingly strange, because this editor participated heavily in the VPPOL RfC that lead to MOS:LIFE saying what it does today, including permitting limited forms of capitalization for established, standardized breeds, not for landraces, and not for terms like "pony" and "horse" except in unusual cases of extreme ambiguity, and even then only when supported by the preponderance of the source material. That was a hard-won consensus, against considerable opposition (i.e., a preference to lower-case everything but proper names of places and the like). This remains a rather fragile consensus, and JLAN turning against it out of the blue is quixotic at best, since a new RfC on the matter would be fairly likely to conclude against any special allowances for breeds at all since independent source support for such capitalization is quite weak (it's a habit primarily found in breeder and fancier materials, not newspapers, encyclopedias, etc.). PPS: The first example at MOS:LIFE's material on breeds has been corrected to reflect that the article moved (again). The fact that an MoS line-item might not be updated quickly after a page move does not magically invalidate the MoS. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)