Talk:Easy Jet (horse)

Comments

Unfortunately, All Breed Pedigree is editable by anyone, which makes it not reliable enough for a GA review. Sucks, but that's the way it is. That's why the pedigree is sourced to the Legends books, which are reliable, thankfully. And yeah, they race yearlings, unofficially, in QHs. At least they did. I'm not sure if they do any longer, I really don't pay that much attention to the "modern" stuff in the QH breed. I also clarified the starting gate incident, it happened in 1969, and found a source for that last unplaced race (yay me!) so that's covered.Ealdgyth | Talk 05:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, noticed that they listed his dam as having several foals after she died. Nonetheless, it is a good quick and dirty if there isn't a pedigree linked to an external source. (or a paid one, sigh...) Montanabw^(talk) 06:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I link to it all the time and use it for the stuff that ain't going to be long enough to go to GA. I like the site, just won't contribute because it annoys me how it's laid out, and besides, I spent ages (and $$$$) getting my pedigree library together. Don't intend to waste it! Ealdgyth | Talk 06:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The $$$ for AHA datasource is a PITA too. Doesn't AQHA also have a paid database? Montanabw^(talk) 03:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they do. If you're a member, you get $10 a month to spend, but it's a pain in the butt. Luckily, I'm a life member with AQHA (a LONG time ago they offered it for $200 so I took it). Now if only AHA would come down in their price. Oh, a little dirty secret. If you say you're a photographer and give permission to anyone to use your copyrighted photos on the AHA without AHA having to contact you, they'll give you a free year of DataSource. (grins) Found that out when we were setting up the horse photography business. I'm not sure if they require some sort of proof, I didn't handle it. But I liked the year free! Ealdgyth | Talk 03:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination notice

I'm pretty much the principle editor on this page, and I nominated it for GA status. I'm on vacation this weekend, so will be much less available than usual. I should still be available, but figured I should drop a note here to let folks know. Ealdgyth | Talk 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The writing is good, but it could be better.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This is a very good article. It passes all criteria and thus passes GA. Thank you for your work in improving this article to GA status. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 03:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments (2)

This was a great article; it seems very comprehensive and well-organized. Here are some comments:

• In the lead, I think I'd emphasize that he is a Hall of Fame member over the fact that he is the son of 2 Hall of Fame members (maybe switch the first two sentences).
• I am not sure what syndicated means in this context, and the wikilink doesn't appear to clear that up (unless I missed something). (okay, this makes sense now that I read the whole article, but in the lead I was confused)
• Non-horsey people may not understand "starting thirty-eight times"
• It might be wise to explain what a Race Register of Merit is
• Suggestion for new first paragraph of Early life section. I didn't want to make this change myself because it required moving citations around and I didn't want to mess it up.

Long time Quarter Horse breeder and race horse owner Walter Merrick of Sayre, Oklahoma bred two American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame members, Jet Deck and Thoroughbred mare Lena's Bar, to produce Easy Jet in 1967. The two had previously produced Jet Smooth. Lena's Bar had produced a small number of other offspring, but Easy Jet was her last; she died shortly after he was weaned. Both of his parents were descended from Three Bears, who was the sire of Lena's Bar and grandsire of Jet Deck's dam. Easy Jet is one of only two horses in the American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame to have both its parents in the Hall of Fame. His two grandsires, Moon Deck and Three Bars, are also in the Hall of Fame.

Easy Jet was a sorrel colored Quarter Horse stallion. When Easy Jet was fully grown, he stood about 15.3 hands high (63 in (160 cm)), and weighed about 1,300 pounds (590 kg). He had a large star and a stripe on his face. Merrick considered Jet Smooth to be a better looking horse.

I think it's pretty close to FA. Karanacs (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on those this weekend while I'm in Vegas living it up at a horse show... perfect topic! Thanks for the comments, they help a bunch. Like the bishops, this is one of those topics I know so much about that it's hard to know what folks won't know and what they will. I greatly appreciate it! And the copyediting looks great to me, don't sell yourself short. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As of 2008, his offspring had earned over $26,000,000 on the racetrack. In total, he sired 2507 foals in 25 years of breeding. Foaled in 67, died in 92, did he really have 25 years of breeding? The old guy went at it 'til the day he died? :-))SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he did. He bred I think the day before he died. I'd have to check, but his last foal crop arrived in 1993. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Artificial insemination, or the real deal? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Schwarznegger?

But... why there is a photo of Arnold Schwarznegger as Easy Jet? LOL LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.56.177.69 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There are reasonable arguments in terms of Wikipedia guidelines from both supporters and opposers and a slight majority in favour of the move, but not by a significant extent. Normally a "no consensus" close means the article stays where it is, however in this case the article was moved (without any discussion) just before this RM was opened, so we default to the long-term stable title. This means this article will be moved to Easy Jet and the dab page will be moved to Easy Jet (disambiguation). As a side note, requests to revert recent undiscussed moves should always be actioned, rather than contested like this. Then if the original mover wants it moved, they can start the discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Easy Jet (horse) → Easy Jet – Unnecessary disambiguation. There are two related titles "Easy Jet" (the horse) and "EasyJet" (the airline). Per WP:TWODABS, they both have hatnotes pointing to the other page. On a side note, the horse article is a featured article, so I would think that any move of it should be discussed (this is only a personal view, and may have no bearing in any future decisions). – Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 08:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Niceguyedc: The airline is much more widely known than the horse. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I really don't care - but isn't it usual that a disambig page is only used for three or more items? There isn't even a problem with titling since the airline is "easyJet" and the horse is "Easy Jet". (Horse predates the airline also, as an aside). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:TWODABS. Also - this should be moved back to its previous title, as an undiscussed move, if there is no consensus here. Dohn joe (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Easy Jet" is the normal (non-stylized per MOS:TM) English spelling of the well-known large airline (the article about which has been viewed about 800 times per day in the last 90 days) and its Swiss affiliate (the article about which has been viewed about 73 times per day in the last 90 days), not the dead horse that was already beaten 11 times (the article about which has been viewed about 37 times per day in the last 90 days – many of which were probably accidental). So "Easy Jet" should either be the airline article or a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to it, and the path to the horse should remain through the "(horse)" disambiguator and the hatnote in the airline article. I'm surprised this is even being suggested. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The normal spelling is "Easyjet", although some of the companies with "Easy Jet" in their names appear to be related. Peter James (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I was talking about the normal way someone would spell it in English, in the absence of any special guidance, not the way the company itself promotes as its logo-style spelling (see MOS:TM for other examples). If you verbally told someone who is not already deeply familiar with the company what the name of the company is, they would spell it "Easy Jet". Their second guess might be "EasyJet". It would take several tries before they came up with "easyJet" and "Easyjet". To establish a need for disambiguation of the term "Easy Jet", we only need to establish that this might be a reasonably-frequent form of the airline's spelling for those who are looking for information about it, and I think it's clear that it is a reasonably frequent variation – enough that a significant number of people looking for information about an airline might find themselves WP:SURPRISED to be reading about a horse instead of something involving jet aircraft. The fact that more than 20 times as many people are reading about the airline than are reading about the horse means that most people using "Easy Jet" are probably looking for the airline, not the horse. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support per Whisky Tango Foxtrot We are fighting over this? The airline is one word EasyJet. A hatnote would suffice to clarify and the addition of the Swiss company is a mere tendentious attempt to find three articles to justify a dab. It would have been very nice to have discussed all of this before the original move, wouldn't it? Seriously, once again we have a WP:RECENTISM "I didn't find it in Google" explanation. The horse predates the airline by decades and given different spelling and spacing, the original move was a bit abrupt. Montanabw^(talk) 23:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Re "given different spelling and spacing", there is no difference in spelling – only spacing (and capitalization, although if the space is included, both are presumably capitalized the same way). Regarding the suggestion of WP:RECENTISM, I see no sign that the dead horse will become viewed as more important as time goes on or that the notability of the currently operating major airline (which currently attracts more than 20 times the level of interest) will soon decline. An airline is not a pop song. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    • OK, capitalization and spacing. Still. I guess I fail to see why mutual hatnotes wouldn't do the job just as well. But not my circus if the lead editor of the article doesn't really care. Montanabw^(talk) 17:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. No need for unnecessary disambiguation, and the difference in views is not extreme enough to justify redirecting Easy Jet to EasyJet. sst✈ 07:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support as unnecessary disambiguation as well as WP:SMALLDETAILS. It will be easier to distinguish the articles with hatnotes than sending all readers to a dead end.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support.

Move Easy Jet to EasyJet (disambiguation) (any ambiguity is due to th older renamed associate company EasyJet Switzerland)

Move Easy Jet (horse) to Easy Jet ("Easy Jet" has only one topic). Keep the current hatnote for misspelled arrivals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any removal of (horse). This would be throughly disruptive and inconvenient for anyone looking for the airline - when sources are not consistent. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as the current situation is fine most searchers are looking for the airline and there is no evidence that the horse cant be found by the limited number that seek it out. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:TWODABS and WP:SMALLDETAILS. Cavarrone 18:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC).
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The use of "Easy Jet" to describe the airline is very widespread. IMHO there is a stronger case for moving Easy Jet to Easy Jet (disambiguation) redirecting the original to EasyJet and adding a hatnote/for template at EasyJet linking to the disambig page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - the airline is the primary use of the phrase, however spelled or capitalized. The disambiguator for the horse is correct, on common with many other horse articles. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Except that the horse existed long before the airline, so WP:PRIMARY fails as to the airline. More prevalent use today, yeah, but not primary. Montanabw^(talk) 02:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • This is not Man o' War we're talking about here. This horse's degree of notability is not extreme. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I suspect that most of (or at least a lot of) the people who landed on this article before its name was disambiguated were actually looking for the airline when they were presented with the horse. I was trying to study the article statistics before versus after the disambiguation, but something seems wrong with the tool. It currently says this article has had 0 views in the last 90 days (while the airline's article has had 64,000). —BarrelProof (talk) 06:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
        • The lack of view statistics seems to have been because the horse article hadn't existed for very long at its current name. Since the recent move of 12 October, it now shows the article getting about 17 views per day. Before then, while named Easy Jet, it was getting more than twice that many, and since then, the remainder is now going to the dab page. The statistics support my contention that most (or at least many) of the people who were previously viewing the horse article were looking for the airline. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support per smalldetails. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Usage of Easy Jet usally refers to the airline [1]. Zarcadia (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Per WP:SMALLDETAILS the space can be a significant disambiguator, and you simply don't see EasyJet used with the space. Google search results support that Easy Jet with the space is referring to the horse, not the airline. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• That seems clearly untrue to me. When I search for "Easy Jet" using either Bing or Google, the search engine assumes I'm looking for the airline and gives me pages and pages of airline results with no sign of the horse at all. If I use "advanced search" and tell it I only want exact matches that include the space, I start to get a little bit of horse, amidst lots and lots of airline. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed that Google knows that EasyJet (no space) is far more popular, and thus is serving up what it thinks people are 'really' looking for. However we have to take a look at reliable sources for what it's commonname is, and clearly that is without the space. Of those Google results which are with the space, none of the airline links are from what we'd consider reliable sources. Which leaves us with the spaced version being for the horse. While the horse itself isn't going to see a fraction of what the airline will, it still is the primary topic here. If we really felt that the airline was the primary topic, then I would suggest proposing that we get rid of the DAB, redirect to the airline, and leave the existing HATNOTE in place... But that seems a little extreme. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• With its viewership dropping to only 17 views per day since the move to add "(horse)", it seems abundantly clear that the horse is not a primary topic for "Easy Jet". I'm not sure whether the airline should be considered a primary topic for "Easy Jet" (although Bing and Google seem to think it is), but probably most of the traffic the horse article is currently getting is only because there is this move discussion taking place. Once this discussion is over, the viewership for the horse article seems likely to drop into the single digits per day and stay there (unless we move it back to the ambiguous title). —BarrelProof (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment to closer: Please note that this is a malformed multiple-page move request. Since the proposed destination name is already occupied, something needs to happen to the current content of Easy Jet if the proposal is adopted. That disambiguation page already identified four disambiguation topics at the time this move request was filed. Because the RM was improperly submitted as a single-page move, no notification about this move discussion was posted at Talk:Easy Jet, until I put one there manually a few minutes ago. Anyone closing this RM is requested to please take note that the other affected page has not had any notification of this discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support unnecessary disambig. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 18:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Broken links

Ealdgyth I should have checked the article to see what class it was before editing. "broke up paragraphs and left a rather ugly set of code-text in the middle" Yes, I did that temporarily as part of correcting the broken link and I forgot to put it back, my bad.

Also, I use the Cite -> Template -> Web feature in the Source Editor which inserts date as 30 August 2017. I should have checked to see what date format was used in these articles. All of these I admit. And I was definitely trying to help. But, I am a user of AWB. I can use the search and replace feature in that tool to fix all of these, including the language parameter, which I will do. I never thought about that language parameter as it is inserted by the cite template. No one has mentioned it to me in the year I have been here editing. I see you corrected one of the links in your last edit. But another one of the links is still a broken link: "American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA) (2013). "AQHA Racing World Records". American Quarter Horse Association. Retrieved December 20, 2013." It is broken in two places. I will leave this for you to correct since the article is featured. My sincere apologies. It will not take long to make the other articles right with AWB. I try not to make changes in featured articles without posting on the talk page first. Sometimes you don't always remember to check the talk page first. dawnleelynn^(talk) 15:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a biggie. AWB is a crutch - it's better to do edits like this by hand - because you don't run into problems with mucking up formats and stuff. I got all the edits you did to the various QH articles - I don't mind the help, I'm used to correcting things afterwards... feel free to replace the link here ... but it's better to stick with the format already used in an article than change it ... which is what AWB is doing, it sounds like. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth Ok, I haven't used AWB for editing ever. I use it mostly for fixing things, actually I use mostly for search and replace operations. Like I was going to use it to remove the language parameter and change the dates from 30 August 2017 to August 30 2017, but then I saw you had done them already. I did the edits all by hand. And then, any fixing with AWB became unnecessary. It can be really handy for making global edits.

As far as the format for the link, I saw that the format for the horse induction page had changed quite a bit between what was linked in the archive, and the current live induction page, so I thought I was just adjusting for that and also following the parameters the way template pulled them in - you know, the cite template tries to follow what the page itself designates as its current parameters. So, that was my thinking. Also, the template did not pull in everything you would think it should, like the horse's name, and so I added a little bit to the parameters before clicking Insert. I guess I thought it was what you do when you have a new page, that would be the time when you might change the link - to match the new page. And I know you will understand what I am saying, but have other good reasons why the citation should stay the same except for the new URL. I am fine with that now. I will update the remaining horses with this format - like the horse Chicado-v which you thanked me for. And so you know, I am just doing the horses that are in the American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame articles from A to Z. Now that I know how you prefer some things, I can be even more helpful. I'll be starting with F later today. And what is really a pet peeve of mine is bots that take broken links that need to be changed to refer to a new live link because a web site reorganized and points them to an archive link. Anyway, I wanted to take a break from my own stuff, and I like helping others. montanabw thinks so highly of you, so yes, trying to help. Sorry for the trouble, I should have asked you first. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

REally, not a worry. I'll admit I'm a bit anal about citation formats.. but nothing was really bad. I'm just sorry I didn't catch the change of date formats earlier yesterday ... when I could have spared you some work. I'm eyeball deep in actual horse pedigree research so haven't been paying as close attention as I should have. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth It's all good. I tried to find a matching link for the broken link, but I all I could find was this: [2] when you click it, it takes you to a pdf. None of those records match the one that is broken. I did find an archive link however. [3] However, the date of the distance record is 2010, not 2013. I love horses, but I am not so experienced in racing. You might need to look at this link after all. THanks. Or, we might need to use an archive link here. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Easy Jet. 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/20131219133551/http://www.aqha.com/Racing/Content-Pages/Horseman-Info/Awards/AQHA-Horse-Awards/World-Records.aspx to http://www.aqha.com/Racing/Content-Pages/Horseman-Info/Awards/AQHA-Horse-Awards/World-Records.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110106174542/http://qhd.com/horse/stallion.asp?id=2912 to http://www.qhd.com/horse/stallion.asp?id=2912

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Queries

Marking as satisfactory for WP:URFA/2020, but I've got two questions. I'm not seeing where ". By 1993, the year after his death, his foals had earned more than $25 million on the racetrack." in the lead is cited in the body, and are there any statistics more current than 2008 for his siring rankings? Hog Farm _Talk 18:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Marking "Satisfactory" at URFA; Ealdgyth did you see Hog Farm's query? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Easy Jet → Easy Jet (horse) – Seven years ago, there was an RM discussion that failed to achieve a consensus. This is a very ordinary way that someone would be likely to style the name of the well-known airline EasyJet. The article about the airline is of vastly greater interest to readers (about 90 times the number of page views in the last year) and the airline has historical importance as a major leader of the ultra-low-cost carrier phenomenon. Maybe we can reach a consensus if we try again. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support, make primary redirect to EasyJet. 162 etc. (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:SMALLDETAILS, as noted in the previous RM most readers looking for the airline would probably use "Easy Jet" as standard English spelling that the perhaps stylized "EasyJet" similar to the points raised at Talk:George Puscas (sports writer)#Requested move 1 December 2019. Google, Images and Books only returns the airline with sources using "Easy Jet" for the airline. I'm fine moving Easy Jet (disambiguation) here but the horse clearly isn't primary and I'd be WP:ASTONISHED if I typed this title in and got the horse. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• support clear case of wp:surprise—blindlynx 15:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support jawdroppingly clear case of wp:surprise In ictu oculi (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Clear redirect to the airline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.