Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

New reduced font-sized Race Winners tables

The European races use the Color #99ff99 for the bar which is Green. I did a new table (with owners) for the Breeders' Cup Juvenile which is raced on dirt with the Color #D2B48C which is Tan. I thought that for races on dirt they could be done with a Brown/Tan bar whereas for Turf races, use the green. Handicapper 17:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

FAR for Seabiscuit

Seabiscuit has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 15:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

New Member

Hi, I just entered the group. I'm the first one not to mention a (geographical) interest area, which is simply because I couldn't choose one. To introduce myself, I live in Dresden, Germany but mostly follow American racing (especially NYRA). Since most of the project's members seem to focus on horses and horsemen, I may focus on tracks and stakes in all parts of the world .As you can see in my contribs I started by creating articles about the Chilean tracks and some contributions to the List of horse racing venues(I have always been more fascinated by the "cultural" dimension of sports). Please tell me if there are any specific requests/interests or advice. Malc82 22:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

New Member

Hi, I just found this project. I've been editing articles as I find them. I'm in the Chicago area. Jrstark 02:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

New memeber major contribute

Just a wandering Wikipedia editing articles that he sees fit (was a former Derby Owners Club junkie so that sorta explains it abit). Thought I enter with a bang and try to contribute a new template for races. Template:Horseraces infobox. Already placed in the Japan Cup article. Please feel free to edit seeing that I might've made a few boo-boos in or improve it. --293.xx.xxx.xx 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Error

I noticed what looks like an error in the article on War Admiral. It is in the discussion section. Cgblaine2 18:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Charles Blaine


Sortable tables

At Kentucky Derby you can see a new winners table someone designed that is sortable by column. I think we should try to add these everywhere ASAP as it makes it incredibly easy to pick up jockey/trainer/owners with multiple wins in the race. Handicapper 15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

These sortable tables don't appear to be working properly; the only thing it sorts on (no matter which column header you click under) is the year of the race! It'll be a great feature once it works properly... MeegsC | Talk 13:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian racing records

Does anyone know of an Australian sporting publication that lists the racing records of racehorses? I am trying to track down a source for Arwon's record which is flagged as a fact. Capitalistroadster 04:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The Racing and Sports web site has a searchable database of race results for all Australian and New Zealand meetings from August 1991. Free registration is required in order to use the database. The Australian Racing Board has a comprehensive list of links to most Australian Thoroughbred racing sites. The book Analysis of Champion Racehorses by Peter Pring (Sydney: The Thoroughbred Press, 1977 ISBN 0 90813300 60) contains the racing records of many horses prior to 1977. Incidentally, Arwon's racing record was sourced from the AAP obituary report. - Cuddy Wifter 02:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


Try getting your hands on a Millers Guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.111.239 (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

George Duffield

As a participant in Wikification WikiProject, I'd like to draw the above article to your attention. Subject is a retired English jockey. There is a list of the races in which he took part which needs formatting. Perhaps you have a common format for such a list, or you can find one. At any rate, if anyone with some knowledge of racing would cast an eye over the article it would be appreciated. Itsmejudith 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have copied the win list to the Talk page, inserted an info box to the article and listed his Group 1 wins. - Cuddy Wifter 23:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

New Contributor

Greetings, I have recently joined this group. My main interest is in pedigrees and bloodlines, having worked in this field at a South Australian Stud during the 1980's. During my time, their best performer was the lovely Adraan (Fr) filly Magic Flute (born in 1983) whose best wins were the Group 1 STC Doncaster Handicap and Group 1 VATC 1000 Guineas.

I have 5 generation pedigrees for the winners of most Australian Group 1 races, to the year 1990, so initially I will be working my way through adding these pedigrees for horses that have pages here. MagicFlute1983 09:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to make my first project reviewing the Australian Hall of Fame inductees - particularly those of the pre-war era. The first horse I am working on is Poseidon.MagicFlute1983 04:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Poseidon is complete and now published to the live page. I will now be starting work in my sandbox on Amounis (who does not have a page yet). MagicFlute1983 11:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for being away for so long - I have been busy setting up my own business. I am glad to have the time now to finish off my Amounis page over the next couple of weeks. I am also delighted to see that Grand Flaneur was inducted to the Hall of Fame last night. I have already collected some materials about him, and he will be my next project. MagicFlute1983 (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Pedigrees

I would be in favour of formatting pedigrees as follows:

  • bolding of sire and dam names
  • inclusion of colour and year of birth for sire, dam and grand parents
  • inclusion of the Lowe's family number (and branch) for the tail female in the pedigree

Another thing we need to consider is how we handle repeat ancestors in the pedigree for closely linebred individuals.

One thing I have noticed in recent years, is that pedigrees have become increasingly linebred in the first 4 generations - for example Makybe Diva has Northern Dancer in her pedigree 3 times in the pattern 4 x 4 x 4.

I think that it is important to highlight these linebreedings, as they highlight many of the important bloodline nicks that exist (or are emerging).

In sales catalogues in Australia, the standard is to "bold" such repeat ancestors, however in the existing templates the sire and dam are already bolded. Given that, I was considering using bold-italics for line breedings.

Ideally, it would be nice to colour the squares with the repeated ancestors such as in the example that can be viewed at this link, but given the current format of the pedigree template, I can't see how this is possible.

Any thoughts... MagicFlute1983 10:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As of now, there doesn't seem to be standard, so feel free to create one. I'm a bit sceptical about including the ancestor's colour however, it is oftenly not included in pedigree trees and doesn't seem important to me. On the other hand it wouldn't be a problem if some pedigrees included that info and others didn't, so if you want to... . Malc82 22:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have come up with the following that I am using as a standard for the formatting of pedigrees on pages that I have been working on:

  • Include the abbreviated country of birth at the end of each ancestor's name
  • Include the year of birth (where known) for the parents and grand parents
  • Use bold italics for ancestors that are repeated in the pedigree
  • The Bruce Lowe family number in the tail female pedigree box.

Comments welcome. Cheers, MagicFlute1983 23:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Best Template?

I want to add some Northern California-based horses. Please point out the BEST Wikipedia horse entry that one should use as a template. It would be nice if there was a standard template.

Distinguishing horses with the same name

How should we distinguish between different horses with the same name, e.g. Glencoe born in 1831, Glencoe born in 1864 and Glencoe born in 1879?

I propose that we use a similar method to IMDb and that the individual horse articles should be <NAME> followed by a number (Roman numerals in brackets), with "<NAME> (horse)" as a disambiguation page, i.e. in my example the articles would be called Glencoe (I), Glencoe (II) and Glencoe (III) with Glencoe (horse) as a disambiguation page. Note that I'm suggesting we put the number in brackets to differentiate between numbers which have been added to distinguish between different horses with the same name, and numbers which are actually part of the horse's name, e.g. Nijinsky II. This is similar to the system which Handicapper has used for Peter Pan (horse), but with the number in brackets, as described above. Thoughts? MagicFlute1983 15:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Nijinsky is Nijinsky. He got the "II" label because when he came to stand at stud in the U.S., there was already an American Thoroughbred registered with that name. Same situation for Blenheim II and others. Using the designation by age makes sense, but then there are some whose race/breeding record means there will never even be a reference at Wikipedia, never mind a bio and as such we will have XXXX I, XXXX III, XXXX IV, but no XXXX II. Handicapper 16:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, most of the horses with duplicate names will never be 'wikied', and I have concerns about the way that the Peter Pan case has been handled. The US Peter Pan may eventually be 'wikied' as he was a Hall of Fame inductee in 1956, but I doubt the English one will be. I can't see the need to have made allowances for a Peter Pan I, II and III just to get them in chronological order of age. The inital Peter Pan should have just been created as Peter Pan (I), and the just add another number in the sequence as an additional horse of that name comes along. That's how IMDB works.
In the case of Nijinsky and Blenheim, I have often seen them referenced with the 'II' in the pedigrees of their descendants, so it can be taken as their common name. We had a son of Nijinsky at the stud I worked on - his name was Lord of the Dance and he was out of Round Table's full sister "Monarchy", and on his papers his sire was listed as Nijinsky II.
In the case of the Peter Pans, I have never seen their names in printed media with numerals in them. Seeing a horse with Peter Pan III as the title does not make it obvious that it is not a part of his Registered Name, could cause confustion to some readers. Thus I was thinking, if the number was put in brackets, it could be used to indicate it was not part of his actual name.
Alternately, how else could we handle this duplicate names issue. Perhaps name the name of the page "Horse Name (Year foaled)"??
This all came about after looking at the link for Glencoe on the List of Melbourne Cup winners page, as the link actually points to the wrong Glencoe (a British horse). The Glencoe that won the Cup is an Aussie horse that has not been 'wikied', and I was just wondering how to handle the link.
I am only new to wiki, and am really not sure of the best way to go.MagicFlute1983 04:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pedigree Query uses 2, 3, 4 etc. for repeated names. Jrstark 21:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

After thinking this over a bit, my opinion is that we should create disambiguation pages in such cases instead numbering the horses. A dab page could then specify, e.g. Nameme (British horse), Nameme (American horse) and so on. If someone would like to create an article about the Australian Glencoe, I would suggest moving the contents of the existing article to Glencoe (British horse) and leaving Glencoe (horse) as a dab page. I think this is easier for readers than numbering the articles. Even if we should have various horses from one country, it should be possible to specify at the dab page and give each article a reasonable name. Malc82 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a dab page is ideal to set up for a generic search for a horse name (eg the Peter Pan page). However a link for a specific horse from a list of race results needs to link to the page for the horse itself. I am looking to debate and see which standard the group thinks we should use to name the pages of individual horses, which the dab page would then link to. Cheers, MagicFlute1983 02:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Malc82s suggestion to use the Nationality if adding "(horse)" is not sufficent to disambiguate the page. I also think that if we are going to set up a naming convention that we need to bear in mind the existing guidelines at disambiguation and naming conventions. - Cuddy Wifter 08:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving Glencoe (Australian horse) to Glencoe II

I strongly disagree with moving Glencoe (Australian horse) to Glencoe II.

First of all, the name is simply wrong: the horse was named Glencoe, not Glencoe II. There is a ton of disambiguations for Glencoe, so the title isn't specific enough either. Users searching for this horse don't have reason to search for Glencoe II (yes, they will eventually find the dab page and thus the horse, but it's unneccessarily complicated).

Second, the two versions brought up in the above discussion were Glencoe (II) and Glencoe (Australian horse), with the second one not being criticised yet. Also, I moved Glencoe (horse) to Glencoe (British horse) a few days ago, but either way there shouldn't be different naming conventions for the two horses. -- Malc82 18:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Malc82 - I am in favour using the country to identify the horse rather than using II, III, etc. Nijinsky II is a different case as you commonly see his name referenced in such a way in pedigrees etc.
If we are to use this as our standard, the Peter Pan III page, needs to be changed to Peter Pan (Australian horse). There may be others as well, but I have yet to come across any. MagicFlute1983 05:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about the Man o' War page

Hello to the members of the Thoroughbred racing wikiproject. Today User:Kingwell4 changed all of the capitol O's on this page to lower case. This was done once before a few months ago. At that time I reverted them back because doing this breaks the links to a couple of other pages. Most notably the Man O' War Stakes. Before I did anything today I thought that it might be a good idea to come and get a consensus from the project about what to do about this situation. Should we revert the edit made today back or should we move the page to reflect this special horses actual name. Due to the fact that all of the books that I have read and most of the websites that I have ever been to use the lowercase 'o I think perhaps the page should be moved to Man o' War and that any other pages like the race mentioned above should probably be moved also (I also note that the page for Man o' War Boulevard already is lowercase). Now I know that this can be a daunting task as, to do it properly, all of the redirects should be fixed when the page is moved (I am also aware that only a few editors do this). Should you all decide to move it I wanted to offer my skills as a Wikipedia:Wikignome in helping in this task as this is right up my alley. Just last week I spent between 2 to 3 hours fixing all of the redirects at the Monty Python's Meaning of Life page so my fingers and stamina are ready to assist if called on. However, if you decide to just revert the page that only takes whoever decides to do it a second. If you decide to leave the page the way it is this will come up again no doubt. I would suggest leaving a hidden message on the page for future editors as to why you want it with the cap 'O. I will go in and add a piped link to restore any redlinks created by todays edit. Thanks for your time and let me know if you need any help. MarnetteD | Talk 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's indeed Man o'War, according to both the Thoroughbred Times Almanac and the NYRA stakes schedule. Thanks for your help! Malc82 20:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick update for the members of the project. Today I moved the Man o' War page to use the lower case o. I also took the time to fix all of the redirects on any page that linked to this horses page (it took about 90 minutes). However I am not perfect so if you come across any that I missed please change them. MarnetteD | Talk 17:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Living Legends horse retirement home

Greetings. User:Handicapper created the article Living Legends horse retirement home. The article contains no independent references and no evidence of notability, so I tagged it for speedy deletion. Handicapper reverted the tags, and directed me to take it up here, claiming that I "don't know what [I'm] talking about." Leaving aside the obvious issues of reverting speedy tags on one's own articles and making borderline personal attacks, is there a case that can be made for the notability of this home? --Finngall talk 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is: while just recently opened, this retirement stud already is home to some of the most notable Australian racehorses of recent years and got significant press coverage (including Australian mainstream newspapers [1]). Since it is open to the public, it might have notability as a "museum", too. Malc82 19:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I support the notability of this article on the above grounds as well.Bcp67 19:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I too will add my support for leaving this page in. MagicFlute1983 05:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Feedback: Poseidon

I have just published my first major contribution to a wiki page. Over the last week or so, I have taken on the task of fleshing out the page for Poseidon. All that remains to be completed is a few details for his 4yo career, which I am currently getting together.

As this is my first major work on wiki, I would appreciate it if you could please have a look and provide any feedback. Thanks MagicFlute1983 05:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks very good to me (but I haven't yet written a racehorse article myself). I just shortened the intro a bit, it should only give a brief overview. Avoid lists in the intro. Apart from that, great start, keep on the good work! Malc82 07:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback Malc82. It helps with how I should tackle my next project. BTW - I have now included a summary of Poseidon's 4yo career. MagicFlute1983 08:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Karen. Great start to your Wiki writing career, and an excellent choice of subject in Poseidon. It's good to see some of the older Australian champions getting some recognition on Wikipedia. One thing to bear in mind when writing the intro to an article is to make the subject of the article obvious (which you have done), to a reader who is unfamiliar with Thoroughbred racing. You may come across many racing stubs in which the subject of the article is only apparent to racing enthusiasts. I have edited the Racing Record tables of Poseidon using the "Sortable Table" template which I think makes them look a lot neater. What do you think? If you prefer the original, please revert my edit. I look forward to reading more of your contributions to Wikipedia. Regards, - Cuddy Wifter 06:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Category:Famous horses

I would nominate this category for deletion, but wanted to check back here first. As far as I see it, all horses have to be notable to be worthy an article. "Famous" is only a subjective version for "notable", thus this category doesn't seem to have any purpose. Malc82 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to delete this category because of all the sub-categories attached to it. The problem is that all horse articles are categorised as Famous horses AND also categorised in sub-categories. I think all articles listed as "Pages in category Famous horses" should have that category removed from the article page and the Category:Famous horses page should only have sub-categories listed. Does anyone know how you go about doing this? Is there a page where you can propose such action? - Cuddy Wifter 07:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't respond earlier. Your right, this is a problem. As far as I know there is no tool to remove the parent cat from all articles that are already in a subcat, it might be best if we just removed Cat:Famous horses from all horse articles (I mean: whenever we find it, this is too much of a wikignome work and not enough of a problem for anyone to do it systematically). Thanks for noticing the problem. Does anyone disagree with this solution? Malc82 08:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged Category:Famous horses with '''{{catdiffuse}}''' and suggested a course of action on the Talkpage. Any comments and /or help from other members would be appreciated. - Cuddy Wifter 04:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Show Gate

Could one of the Down Under members of this project please clarify this: The article about NZ-mare Show Gate says she was foaled in 1969 but NZ horse of the year in 1977 and '79. Is this really true? I couldn't find any net sources, not even a list of Wellington Cup winners (seems like NZ racing is stuck in the 90s) and the numbers just seem a bit odd to me. Thanks. Malc82 22:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally I found this page, stating that she was Horse of the Year in 1975 and '77, which seems more likely. Should I change the numbers?
She finished racing in 1977 as a 7 year old (Peter Pring - Analysis of Champion Racehorse), so the 1979 date is probably incorrect. Perhaps someone from NZ can confirm the correct dates. - Cuddy Wifter 22:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be safe to change these numbers, as records I have found from various books I have at home confirm that Show Gate had well and truly retired from the track before 1979. According to The Great Decade of New Zealand Racing 1970-1980 (Jack Glengarry, 1983) her last race start was on 29 January 1977 - MagicFlute1983 23:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is another link that confirms Show Gate won NZ HOTY in 1974-75 and 1976-77 - NZ Hearld, 9 September 2006 - MagicFlute1983 00:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Changed it, thanks. Malc82 12:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Thoroughbred racing articles needing expert attention

I have added an {{expert-subject|Thoroughbred racing|date=July 2007}} template to the article Thoroughbred horse race which has added it to the category Category:Thoroughbred racing articles needing expert attention. As this category page did not exists before and Thoroughbred horse race is the only article in it, I guess you need to add the link to that page to this article, so that experts on thoroughbred racing can see which articles have a request for expert help.

It might also be a good idea if someone would go throught the Category:Pages needing expert attention and alter any pages listed there that are to do with thoroughbred_racing from the template {{expert}} to {{expert-subject|Thoroughbred racing}} This will move them into the category:thoroughbred racing articles needing expert attention --Philip Baird Shearer 19:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Have cleaned it up now to give more of a worldwide view and better perspective. The article is still unreferenced and could use improvements. Malc82 15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Historic horses

Following on from the recent clean-up of the Category: Famous horses, the newly created sub-category Historic horses is now up for discussion. - Cuddy Wifter 07:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom Clayton

I have recently created a new stub for early 20th century Australian Jockey Tom Clayton. Please feel free to review, change or make comment. Cheers MagicFlute1983 03:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Horseracing or Horse racing?

I have seen both listed in various articles and category listings and it would seem to be important to decide on one or the other. DandyDan2007 20:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed before, but the only thing I can find is this at Talk:Horse racing. Can anyone recall a prior discussion? - Cuddy Wifter 04:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Either appears to be correct. Both are used by major racing organizations such as:

Handicapper 12:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Using an intial in bios

The NTRA has begun labelling all members with a middle initial, or in some cases a first initial to avoid internet confusion. I've been changing them at Wikipedia whenever I find one but have come across a problem where the same person has been given two different labels such as:

  • Ryan Price (racehorse trainer)
  • Ryan Price (horse racing)

This makes it hard when someone gets around to doing a bio. I have been using "horseman", as it is short in the title and easier to type. I don't care what we use as a designate, but we should agree on one standard. Handicapper 12:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


New categories

I created the following:

  • Category:British Thoroughbred Classic Race winners
  • Category:French Thoroughbred Classic Race winners

If someone can suggest a btter/easier name, please do so. Please note that although I labeled it for horses, in fact it could include jockeys, owners or trainers --- or should there be separate categories for each? Handicapper 13:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Slammington

Hi. I happened by Slammington today, and while it doesn't seem a bit notable to me, I admit I know absolutely nothing about horseracing, so I thought I would drop it here and see if somebody can either improve it or submit it for deletion. Have a great day - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A search of results [2] shows that the horse has only won a maiden race in New Zealand and is therefore non notable. - Cuddy Wifter 04:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

New question for the project about the Man o' War (horse) page

As I noted above - though it may not have been seen - I recently moved the Man o' War page and took the time to fix all of the redirects. As you can see in the title above the (horse) appellation was a part of this page to delinate it from other uses of the term Man o' War like a ship or the jellyfish. User:Handicapper has twice added a redirect to this page to go to a page this page Man o' War that does not have the (horse) as part of its title. This page is a cut and paste job of the original page for this horse. I can understand the aesthetic reason for this as the page looks cleaner without the word horse in parentheses. However, you lose the edit history (go to both of these pages and click on the history tab near the top of the page to see what I am talking about) whenever you do a cut and paste move like this and this why this is against wikipolicy to move a page this way. The question that I would like the thoroughbred project to answer is how do you want the page to look. Here are the two options.

  1. Man o' War (horse) - this keeps the page intact the way it is after I moved it. This choice will necessitate having an admin delete the cut and paste Man o' War page.
  2. Man o' War - This will require one more page move wherein an admin will again do a merge of the two existing pages. It will also require another 90 minutes + of going through all of the pages that link to the Man o' War page and fixing the links like I did last Saturday.

Naturally, I would choose the first option as I am the one that put in the work into fixing this original page last Saturday, but, I have no problem if the project wants to go with second option. In either case we will have to get an admin involved as they have the extra tools to get this done in a clean fashion. One other thing to note I have already added the two edits that Handicapper has made to the page without the (horse) to that page so there wont be any need to do a merge.

I look forward to your decision so that we can clean this situation up. MarnetteD | Talk 19:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that probably most of our articles on horses will end up with (horse) after them, if not (Australian horse) (American horse) etc., I lean towards the 'horse' addition. It's a toss up whether folks would be most likely to look for the type of ship or the famous race horse when putting in Man o'War (And I'll apologize now for all my Man O' War's you had to correct, sorry!) However, I'm not that inclined either way, honestly. With the QHs I've been working on, the names are much less likely to duplicate with other things (Two Eyed Jack isn't something you run into everyday), so hasn't been a big issue for me yet. Us Thoroughbred folks (putting on my Thoroughbred hat) however, should probably work out some sort of naming convention pretty soon, not just about whether we add (horse) but how we're going to deal with all the Glencoes and other duplicates that are out there. Ealdgyth | Talk 19:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


Category change

Note left for User talk:Xaosflux‎

  • I was a little surprised to see the change to Category:United States thoroughbred racing Hall of Fame inductees without notice to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing. "Thoroughbred" is a proper name that requires a capital as officially recorded by The Jockey Club [3], the breed Registry for Thoroughbred horses in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Would you please revert this to its proper title. Thanx. Handicapper 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger suggestions

Hi all,

Noticed that we have horse racing, a reasonably adequate article (needs work but I've seen worse) but also Thoroughbred horse race and flat racing both of which are, to be gracious, not so adequate. I have recommended that they both be merged with either Horse racing or Thoroughbred or both. While there is good reason to break off things like harness racing and Steeplechasing into their own articles, the main horse racing article is 99% about Thoroughbred flat races anyway, so the others are duplicative. There may be another solution out there, but for now, we have two really poor articles that should just go away and be made into redirects. Then, like the articles horse and equestrianism, as subsections within horse racing are truly so comprehensive that they require their own new article, we can always reclaim the old names or do whatever is needed. I'll leave this message here for a few days to see if anyone objects, and if there isn't a big hue and cry, I'll just add it to me to do list. Montanabw(talk) 18:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictograms

Hello, I have made these pictograms, maybe they can be helpful for the project.

Flat

Obstacles

Trot

Mounted trot

Have a nice day. Historicair 15:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

English Channel/A P Valentine pictures

Does anyone have any fair use pictures of English Channel or A P Valentine that they can post to the articles? Smashville 15:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Video - Precisionist

I just found this Video at YouTube. Precisionist came out of retirement to race again. I guess he was really happy to be back because this is the funniest finishing line incident I have ever seen. Handicapper 16:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Open flat horse races

There is currently a proposal to merge the subcategories of Category:Open flat horse races. If any racing fans have an opinion about this, please leave a comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 22#Open flat horse races. -- Zafonic 14:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed general "Horse" WikiProject

There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Horses for a project which would deal with all articles related to horses. It would however primarily limit itself to those articles which are not currently within the scope of any other active project. Anyone who might be interested in seeing such a project become a reality should indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter 20:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

  • As a follow-up, a new project was created in early December 2007, Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine, which is broader in scope than the original proposal. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism with Curlin entry

How does one seek to block user editing rights for a someone who continually edits out facts? It is widely know and openly reported - from the Bloodhorse magazine to ESPN's Breeders' Cup coverage - that 20% of Curlin is owned by two former lawyers (since revoked in KY from practicing law) who remain in jail. That fact is continually edited out. The fate of their 20% stake will come into play as they are facted with a judges verdict to pay back between $45 - $60 million USD in looted funds.

The unsavory ownership element is not lost on those race fans and makes for a frictional relationship. Clearly someone friends of the said owners doesn't care for any such info on the owners to be further kept as part of the record --Kellsboro Jack 04:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet again the entry was vandalized and the 20% owners of William Gallion and Shirley Cunningham Jr. being in jail is removed. I'm irked as the news of Nov 1 with a Judge giving their stake to the 400 platiffs of the class action suit - hence them being in jail - was granted. This is fully material to the situation of the horse. --Kellsboro Jack 13:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We're having more problems with valdalism in the Curlin entry regarding the 20% interest owned by Cunningham and Gallion being turned over to the 400+ fen-phen clients.(Keycap (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)).

New Member

Hi, I'm a newmember and I'm willing to take on assignments within North American Thoroughbred Racing Articles. I'd be willing to expand Jockey, Trainer, Horse (current or historical), and Graded Stake Race articles. Trained in journalism. (Keycap 18:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)).

Polytrack

Anyone want to help me take a stab at cleaning up Polytrack? Currently the article reads like company press release, and has become a depository for a lot of (unsourced) info about the "results" of racing deaths on all synthetic surfaces. Perhaps all surfaces (Tapeta, Cushion, Polytrack, etc) could be combined to "Synthetic Racing Surface" and all point to the same place? (Keycap (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)).

Revamped the article and deleted the ad content. Using Wikipedia as a free way to promote your product is an (increasing) disgrace and a problem ultimately threatening the whole project. There is no need to be shy about this. Unreferenced slander, promo and accusations should be deleted on sight, not merely be tagged. If anyone adds a referenced reiew about the effects of Polytrack this would be welcome. Malc82 (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Owners Silks

An anonymous editor has inserted the owners colours (silks) in the racehorse info box of Balmerino. Is it reasonable to include a new field of "Silks" in the info box? I would be interested to hear other opinions on this subject. Cuddy Wifter 22:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is good, but colors are not easy to find and a lot of work to try to do all the horses done to date. As such, if voted in favor, I think it should be formatted not to show up if left blank. Handicapper (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am against including this information not only b/c of the reason Handicapper mentions above (like being near impossible to find for some retired horses) but also b/c the info seems to apply more to the owner than for the horse itself. Also, what about multiple ownership groups that have an interest in a horse? It isn't unheard of, for example, for the silks to change depending on the number of owners and thier wishes... My vote is that if you want to include this info, include it in a bio about an owner.(Keycap (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)).

I also would side on the 'its nice but doesn't work' category. Example, Calumet's devil red and blue racing silks continue to be seen on the track, but not as Calumet. They were sold after the bankruptcy and assigned to another stable. So how would that get rectified? The era of silks having any meaning or rather connection with fans really seem to have passed IMHO. --Kellsboro Jack (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Horse Colors

There is a very minor problem with the chestnut color for horses, which currently isn't consistent from horse to horse. If you look at the Curlin you will see that he directs to the "correct" Chestnut. However, Secretariat was directing to Chestnut (before I changed it) and other horses like Limehouse were directing to Chestnut which currently doesn't work for color but is consisent with the nomenclature that is used for Bay by using (horse) as the identifier rather than (coat) or (color).

Am I making something out of nothing here by wanting them both to be Chestnut (horse) and Bay (horse) or does it not matter as long as the color directs to the right place? (Keycap (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)).

You are right. I change them whenever I come across them. Handicapper (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrator

The WikiProject Thoroughbred racing needs a member who is a Wikipedia:Administrator to take care of minor things like overriding a "Move" page. etc. If anyone would be willing to become an Admin, please post your name here and I will organize their nomination(s). - Handicapper (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd be willing, but I don't know if the fact that I've only had an account for 5 months would count against me. I'd eventually like to take on some more responsibility around this place. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

resonse to article and comments made by unknown

First- great article- found it interesting and full of facts- thanks for looking at THE FACTS and not mearly conjecture when compareing the greatest of all times- SECRETARIAT- and the also great Man O' War. To the unknown person who wrote the comments doubting all the facts- please keep your comments to yourself if you have nothing more than your guess work backed up with nothing- or at least have some type of data that backs up what you say. Calling the Vet that performed the necropsy on Secretariat a liar without one once of proof- I see why you don't want anyone to know who you are- RIDICULOUS- (I beleive it is called slander, defamation of character, and liable in a court of law!)! I also see why you have the ability to refute the facts in the article- you have been to race tracks for an entire 30 years! WOW- you must be an expert with all that knowledge! Here, let me help you- I will now end the argument over who was the greatest horse ever by using your logic. I own 13 horses and one of them is a thoroughbred that I have never raced- but wait- I have more qualifications- I have watched more than 30 horse races on tv over the years and I have been around horses for the past 2 years. Now, with my qualifications as a horse expert firmly established- I now proclaim that Secretariat is the greatest race horse of all times! Man O' War actually never broke any world, american, or track records (you know how all those race track people make up lies about legendary horses). Secretariat actually never lost a race- those five loses were just made up by Man O' War fans- all just another great conspiracey theory- (Secretariat also broke a world record evertime he raced). Now that I have difinitively answered the question that has baffled so many over the years- I will return to my normal duties as the world's foremost horse expert! Next week I will become the world's basketball authority and answer the question who is the greatest NBA player of all times and why Michael Jordan was actually just another average player- (all his stats were made up by Larry Fans)! Oh, by the way- I will sign my comments. Please feel free to respond anytime if you need anymore assitance. David Couch pineyhillhorses@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.220.25 (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


Am I the only person who cannot make out what the above statements (or rant) is about? Perhaps more importatnly in what context it has any relevance with appearing here? If this was to become just a discussion forum of why X horse is better then Y in the opinion of someone it would be pointless. I enjoy racing with a great deal of zeal however like everyone else contributing to TB racing entries requires removing opinion, placing all remarks in check and sticking to supported facts. --Kellsboro Jack (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I think this is related to what was on Talk:Secretariat (horse). I just deleted a majority of the page since it violated both WP:BLP and WP:TALK. Half the page was a Secretariat vs. Man O'War debate. The other half was debating whether or not Secretariat's doctor was lying. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Will He Wish

Will He Wish at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will He Wish (2007-12-21 – 2007-12-29) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me)

Article for deletion: Tizzy's Dragon

Tizzy's Dragon at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tizzy's Dragon (2007-12-21 – 2007-12-28) Deleted as hoax

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me)

Article for deletion: Blazing Rate

Blazing Rate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blazing Rate (2007-12-26 – 2008-01-01) Deleted

-- Zvika (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Chic (horse)

Chic (horse) (via WP:PROD on 2008-01-02)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox UK Racecourse

Hi WikiProject Thoroughbred racing. I recently encountered {{Infobox UK Racecourse}}. It's the only infobox I've seen where "Prev" and "Next" are used to navigate through an alphabetic list, i.e. as opposed to a chronological one. Personally, I think it would better to remove the "Prev" and "Next" fields from the infobox, and produce a separate navigation box template, similar to {{British motor racing circuits}}, thereby enabling readers to navigate between racecourses in whichever order they choose. But it's just a suggestion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone has created a navigation box ({{Horse racing in Great Britain}}), which has been applied to all the racecourse articles. So I've removed the "Prev" and "Next" fields from {{Infobox UK Racecourse}}. DH85868993 (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition: Effervescing (US)

Before I go through the effort does anyone have any opinions about adding the American runner Effervescing to Wikipedia? He was one of the first TB horses given to D. Wayne Lukas to train and gave him a huge boost after Quarter Horse racing success. Effervescing is perhaps most noted for winning two significant graded $100k stakes races - one on grass the other on dirt - with only five days apart at Hollywood Park in 1978. Does that make the horse worthy for inclusion? --Kellsboro Jack (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Considering he won a Grade I, even if it was submitted to AfD, it would get argued down. I think we've hit a point where either Grade I wins or multiple graded wins denote notability. It'd be a good entry...especially if you have the 30 year old sources. If every professional athlete who has played one game at the highest level is automatically notable, then every race horse who has won a graded stakes should follow that, as it's a more exclusionary guideline. --SmashvilleBONK! 15:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • In case I wasn't overly clear...that was a big Y-E-S. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. A welcome addition by itself but with added historical value via the Lukas context. Handicapper (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In that case I'll put in the effort when I get a little time to pull more resource links. D. Wayne said at the time they were both G1 races; that no longer is the case however other in-print source suggest they were G1s at one time or another in the late 1970s. --Kellsboro Jack (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Added him and took a stab at a documented record. Feel free to edit. Thanks. --Kellsboro Jack (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Redlinked Winners

I'm going to start redirecting the names of the redlinked winners to their trainers if available. Once an article for the horse is created, it can replace the redirect...that way there are fewer redlinks in the Breeders Cup articles and such. If you write an article on the red link horse, feel free to undo the redirect. --SmashvilleBONK! 05:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That may or may not be a good idea. If you want to encourage people to write missing articles, it might be better to leave them as red links. If people see blue links, they might not realise the articles need to be written. Just a thought. DH85868993 (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DH85868993 - it will be much easier to determine articles that are yet to be created if they are left as red links. MagicFlute1983 (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I added about 6 before I really thought about it...I'll create stubs for them over the weekend. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Silky Sullivan

Silky Sullivan is a great article, and could easily reach GA or even FA-Class if a few editors cleanup the tone and add inline citations. It also needs a new lead section. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 14:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this article anywhere near the GA criteria. A GA most of all has to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and this article doesn't at all. It makes for an interesting read, but the tone isn't encyclopedic or NPOV at all, not to mention the problems with WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK terms or the fact that it is largely unreferenced. I have removed the "tone"- tag for the moment but did so for formal reasons only and will re-install it with the talk-page explanation in a few minutes.Malc82 (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Read what I wrote. I said that the article could easily reach GA or even FA-Class if... Note the if. And I don't think removing the tone tag is a good idea. The article as it stands right now has very serious tone issues. —Viriditas | Talk 14:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of what you said, but what makes the article a pleasant read is the same thing that makes it unencyclopedic. Basically, I think the article would have to be largely re-witten to get the problematic tone (tag is back) out of it. Malc82 (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Back to my original edit: cleaning up the tone and adding inline citations is an automatic rewrite. —Viriditas | Talk 14:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I made User:Smashville/Silky Sullivan so we could have a sandbox page to work out the tone. --SmashvilleBONK! 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents but I've enjoyed the tone of the Silky article because it wasn't so sterile. The horse converted droves and droves of people into fans - I dare say that Smarty Jones and Funny Cide while popular, failed to generate as much as Sullivan did - but that is never going to be captured in raw numbers of win, place or show. The all too rampant wiki police just itching to label articles with POV issues seemingly are running amuck. Frankly I think Secretariat's entry suffers from POV issues with that pervasive 'he's a god' like tone, but if anyone dares touch that and you'll be branded anti-Big Red.

Further, in terms of the "it isn't cited" policing as of late I have to say a lot of articles do have references at the bottom. Yet when they were created folks didn't see the need to footnote every other element in a horse entry. I'm not suggest we should allow things to be fast and loose with stats by any means but the branding of every entry having less then 5 footnotes as somehow lacking citation (and thus deemed by someone as dubious) is silly. --Kellsboro Jack (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the tone of the article doesn't adhere to a neutral point of view and is full of peacock terms...both of which or against Wiki-style. It's a good article, but it's not very encyclopedic. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that in articles of rather trivial nature (which those about racehorses are) we shouldn't apply referencing and even Weasel/Peacock rules too strictly. But the question here was if the article was near-ready for a Wikipedia Good article nomination, which of course must demand the strict application of our guidelines. I personally think that the article may be better off in its current state than in a "cleaned up" state. Strictly speaking, there may not be too much to say encyclopedically (not sure if that word actually exists :-) ) and the current state may be preferrable to readers searching for the article. As long as there is nothing factually wrong or misleading in it, we may just clean up the most obvious tone-problems and leave it at that. Malc82 (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
For the third time, I want to make it clear that I never said that, nor did I pose that question. I realize that English is not your native language (nor German mine) but what I said was, if the article tone and reference problem can be cleaned up, then it will be ready for GA or FA. The article has a lot of potential for improvement and there is a great deal of encyclopedic sources available for expansion. I don't think we should leave the article in its current state, and I'm surprised that you actually made that suggestion. If that is the case, I'll just remove the project tag and add those who are actually willing to improve it. —Viriditas | Talk 00:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, your initial sentence sounded (at least to me) like you considered the article a possible GA candidate. Sorry if that was a misunderstanding. If you have enough references that's all the better. I didn't say the article should stay as it is, only that racehorse articles in general shouldn't be held to the same standards of referencing that I would demand in an article about a scientific topic. The tone as it is now is of course too out-of-line, which is why I tagged it. The problem I see is that the whole structure of the article so journalistic that it is a major effort to encyclopedify (wow, grammar can be fun :-) ) it (i.e. you can't just go through the article, eliminate problematic terms, re-arrange a few sentences and slap a ref behind every major statement). If of course you are willing to make that effort, that's great. Malc82 (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the header on your project page: The Thoroughbred racing WikiProject is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia articles and general content on topics related to the sport of thoroughbred horse racing. The tag was in the article before you removed it and added it again, and racehorse articles in general are held to the same referencing standards as all articles. —Viriditas | Talk 00:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright. Btw: I didn't want to claim any "credit" for being the first tagger, the fact remains that tags without explanation are meaningless, which is why I removed the tag (before reading the article) and re-installed it after writing an explanation. Thanks for the "basics of Wikipedia" lesson. Malc82 (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
That's true about the tags, but what you don't know is that the article was blanked by the primary contributing author [4] and later speedily deleted by User:Crzrussian on 20:12, 18 October 2006 as G7, so any comments on the talk page were deleted. The content was restored at 21:11, 20 October 2006 by Crzrussian (584 revisions restored: hasty). I don't know the full story, but any comments on the talk page were deleted. It looks like an anon IP added the tag at 00:18, 21 February 2007[5] so any deleted material on the talk page in October would be irrelevant. —Viriditas | Talk 00:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Didn't know about the Speedy. The tag that I removed was dated December 2007 (in the tag itself, I haven't gone through the edit history to confim this). Malc82 (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like SmackBot tagged it by date in December[6] even though it was added in Feb. 2007.[7] —Viriditas | Talk 01:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing

Hi. I've added Category:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing and a related article category as an initial step towards assessment. If this project isn't active, I'm not sure how useful it will be, so I stopped one step short of setting it up, but it's easy to do and anyone can get the ball rolling. You've got somewhere in the neighborhood of ~2000 tagged articles, so you're going to want to use AWB or a bot to start sorting your stubs. —Viriditas | Talk 10:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)