Talk:Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing (United States)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing (United States) 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 B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
Merger proposal
[edit]American Classic Races → United States Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing — Both articles refer exclusively to the same three races (Kentucky Derby, Preakness Stakes, and Belmont Stakes), commonly known as the Triple Crown. — Hippopotamus (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Survey
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result was merge into United States Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing. -- Hippopotamus (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to state your position on the merging proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.
- Support as proposer. Hippopotamus (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support likewise. —pfahlstrom (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support it covers the exact same ground, and "American Classic Races" isn't generally used by racing fans and experts anyway; everyone just calls it the "Triple Crown" 66.92.37.74 (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - see full discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing#merge American Classic Races and United States Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing?? Handicapper (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support. The arguments on the WIkiProject page could just be solved by a redirect from "American Classic Races" to "United States Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing". Aubergine (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- Any additional comments:
Why is this at "United States Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing"?
[edit]Are there other Triple Crowns of Thoroughbred Racing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- See Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing. The UK one is the original. There are also dozens of others. --Smashvilletalk 20:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks, that answers the question. :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Fillies denoted with hearts = condescending
[edit]Anybody else think that the heart symbols to denote fillies at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Triple_Crown_of_Thoroughbred_Racing#Individual_Triple_Crown_winners are too "cutsie." These fillies were tremendous athletes in their own right regardless of gender. What equivalent symbol would be used for colts? ♣? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.12.138 (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Disputed information in the sponsorship section
[edit]The only reference for the $5 million bonus is a dead link (to a questionable source). I believe that in fact there has been no bonus since Visa's sponsorship was withdrawn, though I'm having a hard time finding documentation of encyclopedic quality. Here's an example link backing up my claim; also Triple Crown Productions' own webpage makes no mention of the purported bonus. This section could actually use a bit of cleanup in general (there's a lot of unrelated information about network coverage, as well as uncited speculation on Visa's motives for withdrawing sponsorship) Brock256 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
This just in in 2012: I'll Have Another scratched from Belmont
[edit]There was also a news story saying he'd galloped around that track yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Gary Stevens opinions
[edit]Why is Gary Stevens opinions on the Charlie Rose show, and his opinions on Big Brown(biased because he was involved with the IEAH owners of the horse), included in this article? Peteski132 (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing that out. Being inappropriate subject matter to this article, it has now been removed. --Hoarse Horse (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree as to the fresh horses argument, that's highly relevant. I restored that bit but added some past and present additional supporting material with sources to provide context. The Big Brown bit is probably well-taken due to the COI nature of the situation at the time, but amusing because it's the same person contradicting himself. Probably better would be current comments about California Chrome. Montanabw(talk) 17:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Drought
[edit]Is it a 36-year drought or a 37-year drought? I come up with 36; the article says 37. Am I counting wrong? I did 2014 minus 1978 = 36. Is that incorrect? I am not very familiar with this topic. Which is correct? If it is 37, where does the "extra" one come from? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Joseph, good noticing that! It is a 36 year drought, now that the 2014 season is over, because the drought began in June 1979 with Spectacular Bid's "failed" attempt, not in June 1978 with the Triple Crown "win" by Affirmed. Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for fixing that! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Project coverage
[edit]Removing a project because other correlating projects haven't added themselves yet is not a satisfactory reason especially due to WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN. Other correlating projects can be added at the leisure of members of those projects. Or anyone can add them as long as they want to take responsibility for that. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Accusing other editors of "OWNership" is very rude, particularly where, as in this article, the person you are so accusing hasn't even edited the article much. I believe that it is you who is overreacting to having your project tag removed. I think you are engaging in WikiProject tagging overkill for Louisville, and here, the Triple Crown isn't even decided in the Derby, it's only the first of three races, so it seems inappropriate to credit only one location. If you really think it's that big a deal for your town, then it is for all three, and YOU should be the gracious one and show a bit of respect by adding the other two cities. Montanabw(talk) 22:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- As I stated on my talk page, my intention was to refer you to a guideline that happened to have a shortcut of "OWN", not to specifically accuse you of WP:OWN. I apologize again for what was really an unintended tone. On the other hand, I don't see any "overreaction" on my part -- I am simply maintaining a project I belong to using the guidelines to help with that work. As for "tagging overkill" for WP:Lou, this isn't the forum to discuss that (that belongs on the project's talk page or in a wider venue of your choosing). All I will say about that here is that I am tagging articles related to Louisville, and there's a pretty hard upper limit for that, so I don't see any cause for concern.
- As for having all the related geographical projects here, I agree in principle they should all be represented but I wanted to ask them in their forums first if they wanted to do that, and that's what I just did earlier. I don't belong to the other affected projects. If I don't get a response in the near future, I'll go ahead and add them.
- As for the Triple Crown mattering to Louisville, it matters a lot here, as I'm in Louisville, and it's about all they talk about during the Spring. Note that you can't have a Triple Crown winner without a horse winning the Kentucky Derby. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But per your talk page, can you maybe collapse the project boxes now? They are getting pretty unwieldy and large all together. Montanabw(talk) 05:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done. I don't have any issue with collapsing unwieldy project banners, especially since I'm likely to add more soon. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 10:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Article improvement drive
[edit]Hi all page watchers. I'm thinking this article is a good candidate to improve to a Featured list. I'm going to boldly start fiddling with it, but please feel free to dive in and help, comment, trout slap or whatever. Looks like we have no clear lead editor here, so if there is one, just pop by and let me know! Montanabw(talk) 20:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Noted the anon IP who sorted out the winners of the first two races from those who won any two. I actually think that works, other than the garish green color. I went ahead and restored it. But if folks don't like it, we can still discuss. Montanabw(talk) 19:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'll go along with this change only if the tacky colors are changed to a traditional color model, one that represents excellence in sports, not an ugly color model such as this. I suggest a medal count color scheme (gold, silver, bronze), something of the like, to be used, as gold signifies a champion, unlike yellow, which signifies the complete opposite. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Montanabw, for restoring this. Discographer, yellow was the original color on the list. I didn't choose that.
- For now I have a slightly brighter yellow for the TC due to readability, but I can make it more gold, the gray (call it silver if you want) for the 2 of any 3 and turquoise (for totally random reasons) for the winner of the first two. There really isn't a 2-3 ranking for the two non-TC options, but open to another color if you don't like turquoise. ;-) Montanabw(talk) 21:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Having more gold would be great. The gray/silver is fine, but the turquoise just has to go. Other than that, everything else looks good. Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)- (Discographer continued) This is how this article's section was before today (18 May 2015). Since it was more easily readable and not nearly as messy as it is now, I vote to restore the wikitable back to that previous format. Like the old saying goes, If it's not broke, then it doesn't need fixed!. The wikitable itself has nothing to gain with any major changes made to it, only more so of a loss of quality. I applaud Montanabw for his ambition into making this a better wikitable, and any new trivia he may have added can be placed in the notes section immediately below the wikitable, though our efforts should not be focused here on this wikitable, but more so elsewhere in the article itself. (more below)
- FWIW, I'm looking at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria where it says, "where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items." Also a call for images... Montanabw(talk) 03:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The old table
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Individual race winners[edit]
Notes
|
(continued from above) A new Near Misses section can always be added on and placed in-between the Triple Crown Winners section and the Individual Race Winners section. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
You are right that the partial annotations look like crap. I reverted that to remove the annotations for now, kept the 3-way color scheme for the moment. Much to add, and much to source, though. 03:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- The symbols referring back to the meanings of the colors are redundant. It should be marked with a color or a symbol, not both. Adding a near-misses section would result in duplicate information, as there should be a single table listing all of the race winners anyway.
- One alternative would be to eliminate the "any two races" designation, as the only "near miss" is a horse that wins the first two races. Winning the first and third or second and third is not a "near miss". Once a horse loses a race, the horse no longer is in the running for the Triple Crown. None of the future races matter. It would be like saying a pitcher who gave up a hit to the batter had a "near miss" of a no-hitter when no one during the course of the game would talk about it that way.166.137.10.32 (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to make this article suitable for nomination as a Featured List. As I have done featured articles but not a featured list before, I am most certainly finding my way through here with a bit of awkwardness and welcome any ideas, thoughts, and so on. MOS:ACCESS is quite clear: We cannot rely upon color alone for a table to qualify as FL. I'm open to ideas to do something different than the symbols used, but a) color is VERY helpful to sighted readers who are not color-blind, but b) I don't think the article will pass FL without some sort of screen reader-readable symbols. I'm looking as examples, and List of accolades received by Haider (film) uses both color and words. Montanabw(talk) 03:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm quite flexible in how to improve the table, but the one thing I DID do was toss all the notes from the bottom and incorporate them into the chart itself. I think that will be a far more useful way to do things, even if we don't have notes for all races. Montanabw(talk) 03:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- However I DO think that the notation of the horses that won two of three, even if not the first two, IS significant and should stay in: It's commented upon widely in the racing press, particularly examples of very famous horses that were non-Derby winners such as Man o' War, Northern Dancer, and Point Given. The Derby-Belmont winners are also quirky and interesting. Montanabw(talk) 03:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Finally, as the Featured Lists are all over the place in their look, the ones I'm thinking of as examples would be ones with annotations such as List of U.S. state horses (the only horse one I know of other than the happens-every-time List of Olympic medalists in equestrian) or List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I (which has a lot of annotations). If FLs are anything like FAs, the older examples are not as helpful as the newer ones. One newer one is List of Sesame Street Muppets. There's nothing I've found yet that is exactly analogous. Meh... Montanabw(talk) 03:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Way better, good! Best, --Discographer (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Pre-FLC comments from an outside viewer
[edit]Here are some suggestions, none of which take account of any prior discussion. Feel free to ignore them, hopefully some will be of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Lead needs work, all the paras are either single- or double-sentences.
- The list should really focus wholesale on the Triple Crown winners, the other winners should be in another list.
- The "individual races" section, while the table is a handy ready reckoner, could use a bit more prose to discuss each race. Not much, mind you, because we have main articles about each race, but their significance and a little bit of potted history would give context to why the Triple Crown is so important.
- As I think we should be focussed on the winners of the Triple Crown, not the overall list of winners of each race, we need to expand the "Winners of the Triple Crown" section with a bunch of prose to discuss the winners in more detail. A good analogy is something like the History section of List of Manchester City F.C. managers which has a few nice chunks of prose, complemented by a table of managers.
- Minor point, not sure how you can sort the "Colors" in the table.
- Sortable tables with names should use the {{sortname}} template.
- The "Unsuccessful bids" section needs serious inline citation work. Again, I'm not entirely opposed to this section but I feel the list needs to focus on the Triple Crown winners, not the also-rans.
- Minor point, is it Thoroughbred or thoroughbred? There seems to be some project-wide inconsistency....
Montanabw That's all I have at the moment, from a quick run through. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, TRM! This is the kind of feedback I needed! Indeed, the citation needs a LOT more work (Am distracted at the moment by my GAN for American Pharoah and working on the BLP issues surrounding his owner, Ahmed Zayat - who is quite a character! SO any further help or comments are most certainly welcome here and I will tackle them as time permits. I pretty much agree with most of what you suggested above. Some of the table stuff I don't really know how to do...For example, the big list really should not be sortable... or completely redone to only list the "two out of three" winners. What do you think? Montanabw(talk) 20:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I can and will help with the technical stuff. As for the content, well that list I just wrote was my opinion and I'm not sure if you or anyone else entirely would agree with it. Cut the stuff we both agree with cutting, fix the stuff we agree needs to be fixed, and let's see how we go from there? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- That sounds maaahvelous, daahling! [1]. Montanabw(talk) 23:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Another angle
[edit]Seeing as how this is a list-class article in a lot of ways, adding this chart from the Triple Crown overview article:
Near Misses
[edit]The following horses won the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness but did not win the Belmont:
| Year | Horse | Belmont performance |
|---|---|---|
| 1932 | Burgoo King | Did not start (injury) |
| 1936 | Bold Venture | Did not start (injury) |
| 1944 | Pensive | 2nd to Bounding Home |
| 1958 | Tim Tam | 2nd to Cavan |
| 1961 | Carry Back | 7th to Sherluck |
| 1964 | Northern Dancer | 3rd to Quadrangle |
| 1966 | Kauai King | 4th to Amberoid |
| 1968 | Forward Pass | 2nd to Stage Door Johnny |
| 1969 | Majestic Prince | 2nd to Arts and Letters |
| 1971 | Canonero II | 4th to Pass Catcher |
| 1979 | Spectacular Bid | 3rd to Coastal |
| 1981 | Pleasant Colony | 3rd to Summing |
| 1987 | Alysheba | 4th to Bet Twice |
| 1989 | Sunday Silence | 2nd to Easy Goer |
| 1997 | Silver Charm | 2nd to Touch Gold |
| 1998 | Real Quiet | 2nd to Victory Gallop |
| 1999 | Charismatic | 3rd to Lemon Drop Kid |
| 2002 | War Emblem | 8th to Sarava |
| 2003 | Funny Cide | 3rd to Empire Maker |
| 2004 | Smarty Jones | 2nd to Birdstone |
| 2008 | Big Brown | DNF to Da' Tara |
| 2012 | I'll Have Another | Did not start (injury) |
| 2014 | California Chrome | 4th to Tonalist |
03:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)50.5.218.185 (talk)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
- Burgoo King bowed a tendon in early June 1932 a few days after the Belmont and missed an engagement in the American Derby.[2] He was not entered for the Belmont Stakes (most likely because he was pointed toward the American Derby run a week later).[3] Froggerlaura ribbit 21:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've got a "listy list" in the article already, if you want to pop that in at Triple_Crown_of_Thoroughbred_Racing_(United_States)#Unsuccessful_bids, go for it! Montanabw(talk) 22:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Source material
[edit]Good info on the triple crown winners:
Moved from user talk
[edit]If I don't park this here, I'l forget it exists:
Featured list informal peek
[edit]Hi Grapple X, I saw you recently had a FL promoted on a topic that was kind of complicated and was wondering if you'd be interested in doing an informal PR on Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing (United States) to see what's missing or - more to the point - what could be done differently before I put this up for a FL; there's a lot of text and so I was looking for an example (like yours) of a FL that passed with a lot of text commentary...any help or even informal comments there at the talk page would be welcomed! Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 22:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- The main impression I get from it is that it's trying to do too many things at once—it seems that the real meat and potatoes of it is those who have won all three Triple Crown winners, but you also have a list of all winners and a list of almosts. Perhaps splitting the winners out into Winners of the Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing (United States), which could include the two-out-of-three winners, and then using the existing title to give an overview of the results of each year's races regardless of having a shared winner or not, would be more efficient. I don't think it would entail much more work beyond the organisation, as the content itself you have there seems to be fine. But as it stands, the "Development", "Sponsorship and broadcasting" and "Individual race winners" sections seem like they should be in one article, and the "Winners", "Records", "Other notable achievements", "Gaps between wins" and "Unsuccessful bids" sections should be a second. In terms of text, you do have a good balance, as it's something that does need to be explained in prose but obviously lends itself to a list format for large swathes too, so that seems right. However you plan on proceeding with it, ping me during the FLC(s), as I know that text-heavy lists can be off-putting for reviewers and you might find yourself waiting a bit. GRAPPLE X 23:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input; you raise interesting points. It's a challenge to take on something that's already out there — the article was already quite extensive when I began working on it and did have this mishmash problem even then. There are only 12 Triple Crown winners. I can see the wisdom of just splitting them out and fleshing out that list a bit, but is a list of 12 too small for FL status? Montanabw(talk) 22:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- (TPS) A stand-alone list of 12 is perfectly fine, especially as there's plenty of prose to complement it. I'd go with Grapple's suggestion, split the article into two clear, definable topics. One with the actual list of winners, alongside a collection of records and statistics. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input; you raise interesting points. It's a challenge to take on something that's already out there — the article was already quite extensive when I began working on it and did have this mishmash problem even then. There are only 12 Triple Crown winners. I can see the wisdom of just splitting them out and fleshing out that list a bit, but is a list of 12 too small for FL status? Montanabw(talk) 22:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- When it comes to defining an article or list's breadth, it's not so much raw size as scope—something can be small but focussed, to an extent that would overburden any potential parent article in terms of relative scale were it part of something larger. So twelve entries is not a universal measure of being small. Twelve entries in a defined scope with a good amount of focus, and a parent article which mentions them but would be overpowered by that same amount of detail is fine; and that's what you'd be looking at. Twelve entries for something that could easily be contained within its parent article without undue weight is too small, but for that to happen you'd be looking at maybe a film awards list for a film that won very little, or splitting an artist's discography by decade when they only have ten or fifteen records anyway. I could have a dig for you to find some FLs of similarly concise scope if you want to show precedent. GRAPPLE X 23:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office, United States Secretary of Energy and List of Presidents of the United States who died in office are all of similar size to what you'd be looking at; the latter especially is very prose based. GRAPPLE X 23:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- When it comes to defining an article or list's breadth, it's not so much raw size as scope—something can be small but focussed, to an extent that would overburden any potential parent article in terms of relative scale were it part of something larger. So twelve entries is not a universal measure of being small. Twelve entries in a defined scope with a good amount of focus, and a parent article which mentions them but would be overpowered by that same amount of detail is fine; and that's what you'd be looking at. Twelve entries for something that could easily be contained within its parent article without undue weight is too small, but for that to happen you'd be looking at maybe a film awards list for a film that won very little, or splitting an artist's discography by decade when they only have ten or fifteen records anyway. I could have a dig for you to find some FLs of similarly concise scope if you want to show precedent. GRAPPLE X 23:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
May be worth working on
[edit]This was added by an anon IP on 10/31/2015 and I removed it because it is unsourced. But if verifiable, and not OR, it is interesting:
In 2015, NBC coined the term "Grand Slam" to put a name to the feat of winning the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness, the Belmont Stakes, and the Breeders' Cup Classic. American Pharoah accomplished this feat by winning the Breeders' Cup Classic on October 31, 2015.
Before the Breeders' Cup, the Marlboro Cup was considered the year end championship race. The Marlboro Cup was one of the more prestigious nationally televised races in the United States. Another Grand Slam could be made using the Jockey Club Gold Cup, a common race for many Triple Crown winners to go to near the end of the year. Both Grand Slams formed with the Marlboro Cup or the Jockey Club Gold Cup are unofficial.
Grand Slam Winners (Kentucky Derby, Preakness, Belmont Stakes, Breeders' Cup Classic):
- 2015 - American Pharoah
Grand Slam Winners (Kentucky Derby, Preakness, Belmont Stakes, Marlboro Cup):
- 1973 - Secretariat
- 1978 - Seattle Slew (Career Grand Slam; Triple Crown '78, Marlboro Cup '79)
Grand Slam Winners (Kentucky Derby, Preakness, Belmont Stakes, Jockey Club Gold Cup):
- 1930 - Gallant Fox
- 1938 - War Admiral (Career Grand Slam; Triple Crown '37, Jockey Club Gold Cup '38)
- 1942 - Whirlaway (Career Grand Slam; Triple Crown '41, Jockey Club Gold Cup '42)
- 1948 - Citation
- 1979 - Affirmed (Career Grand Slam; Triple Crown '78, Jockey Club Gold Cup '79)
The "grand slam" concept needs to be traced to its origins (I first saw it mentioned on ESPN) and if either of these other races was called a "grand slam". Montanabw(talk) 05:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- I found this AP article that claims the Breeders' Cup came up with the phrase. JRHorse (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Bottom line is that it's new, but not "made up" (we're having a new editor who seems to think it is...). Let's keep digging and see what we can do with it. Montanabw(talk) 23:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Metric Distance; Speed
[edit]The shown metric distances are rounded. Using the 1959 international mile of 1609.344 meters (from the 1959 international inch of 25.4 mm exactly) gives 2011.68 meters, 1911.096 meters. and 2414.016 meters respectively. It is presumed that the other standard mile based on the U.S. survey foot would not apply.
The fastest time of 119.4 seconds for the KD gives a speed of ~37.688 miles per hour. This is about 4 times faster than the speed of an average bicyclist. Half of the horses speed is starting to get to the danger point for the non-professional bicyclist.
agb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.233.167.63 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing (United States). 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/20150413041929/http://www.preakness-stakes.info/history.php to http://www.preakness-stakes.info/history.php
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913153534/http://tcm.bloodhorse.com/index.asp to http://tcm.bloodhorse.com/index.asp/
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) 08:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing (United States). 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/20151202063914/http://www.belmontstakes.com/horses-historyrail.aspx to http://www.belmontstakes.com/horses-historyrail.aspx
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150530024116/https://www.thetriplecrown.com/preakness-stakes to https://www.thetriplecrown.com/preakness-stakes
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150530045242/https://www.thetriplecrown.com/belmont-stakes to https://www.thetriplecrown.com/belmont-stakes
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150530045145/http://www.belmont-stakes.info/history to http://www.belmont-stakes.info/history
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) 02:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
By Year
[edit]Why is there no "Triple Crown 2018" wiki, let alone for previous years? The three indiv races each lead to such articles, but where are the yearly overviews? There's articles for "Road to the Kentucky Derby [year]", for example -- why not for the Crown itself?! 173.9.95.217 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- yeah, ditto. especially in 2020 when sched/order of races has changed so drastically.
- indiv races have 2020 pages; surely the overall contest should as well! 66.30.47.138 (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Race times
[edit]Why don't the articles have the race times included in the charts?
Example:
- First Place Winner (Justify) ... winning time = 2:04.20.
- Second Place Winner (Name) ... winning time = 2:05.20
- And so forth
Isn't that statistic an important component of these races? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- i agree. altho, the indiv races (by year) do list them.
- just another reason why we need a "triplecrown [year]" set of articles! 173.9.95.217 (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Where do you see them listed? I could not find them. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- kinda hard to miss!
- indiv years have times for the non-winners as well. 66.30.47.138 (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Corrected for 1937. Whoever or whatever Chris Klein is, he didn't win the Triple Crown and is very likely not a horse.--2600:8803:B402:FA00:F11E:A07B:2378:9EF0 (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Off years
[edit]should be a lot more obvious which years triple crown was never in contention. i.e. 2 years belmont not run, 3 years preakness not run, and 2 years derby/preakness overlapped.
a) in the opening paragraph and b) that chart down bottom. asst footnotes are too indirect -- how abt a diff COLOR on the year?
also apply to first 8 years when trio of races didn't yet exist (altho THOSE at least are pretty clear in current chart).
not sure abt the dividing line between triple crown ACTUALLY existing vs. years applied retroactively. maybe also needs visual depiction in chart. 66.30.47.138 (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Merge here
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- No further comments, merging. JRHorse (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I have just become aware of an article titled United States Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing on television. It has existed since 2008, but is short, not well-written, and somewhat duplicative of the broadcasting section in this article. Basically, it’s a content fork. I think it better to make this the more comprehensive article and move the TV material here. Montanabw(talk) 03:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Follow up: I also added Triple Crown Productions because it was primarily a broadcast promotion, and has now been defunct for over 15 years, so I think,that article could be shortened and consolidated here. Montanabw(talk) 03:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Would definitely support merging both articles here for the reasons stated. JRHorse (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- if no one else weighs in a couple of days, I say go ahead and do it. Montanabw(talk) 05:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- I opened a talk thread at Talk:United_States_Triple_Crown_of_Thoroughbred_Racing_on_television#Merge_proposal; I propose proceeding with the merge in a few days. JRHorse (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- if no one else weighs in a couple of days, I say go ahead and do it. Montanabw(talk) 05:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Triple Crown
[edit]I have a thought, there needs to be a change in the Triple Crow racing schedule. Run the Derby as usual, run the Preakness 4 weeks later and the same for the Belmont. This gives the horses 4 weeks apart from each race and maybe you will get more horses entered in the final 2 legs. These fine animals need that time to recover . I know it is tradition but other races have been moved to accommodate more rest for these fine animals between races. Thanks, Daryl Fogle If you want to contact me my e-mail is daryl47711@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.255.45 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Willie Simms
[edit]I have added information on the African-American Jockey Willie Simms. Though he rode different horses, he is still the only African-American jockey to have won all of the races that now form the Triple Crown. 2600:100A:B102:5B59:F03C:EC07:4444:EF9C (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- B-Class Horse racing articles
- High-importance Horse racing articles
- WikiProject Horse racing articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- B-Class Louisville articles
- High-importance Louisville articles
- WikiProject Louisville articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class Maryland articles
- Mid-importance Maryland articles
- B-Class Baltimore articles
- Unknown-importance Baltimore articles
- Baltimore task force articles
- WikiProject Maryland articles
- B-Class New York (state) articles
- Unknown-importance New York (state) articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report