Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing. 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 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Article for deletion: Blazing Rate
Blazing Rate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blazing Rate (26 December 2007 – 1 January 2008) 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 2 January 2008)
- --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 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)
- 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'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)
- 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)
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 [1] 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[2] 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[3] even though it was added in Feb. 2007.[4] —Viriditas | Talk 01:11, 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)
- That's true about the tags, but what you don't know is that the article was blanked by the primary contributing author [1] 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[2] so any deleted material on the talk page in October would be irrelevant. —Viriditas | Talk 00:57, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
New(ish) article
Chester (horse) appears to fall within this project's scope, so I thought I'd pass along the news of the article's creation. --Sturm 23:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Horse Farm Infobox
Would someone like to take a shot at creating an Infobox for horse farms? Handicapper (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I spent some time upgrading this list today, putting the information into a table which can be sorted in a variety of ways. I'd strongly recommend it be moved to a more appropriate title: perhaps List of British National Hunt racing's Champion Jockeys would work? It would be great to get some feedback, plus any suggestions for improvement. The biggest problem is finding reliable references. Any ideas? MeegsC | Talk 22:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- How about reversing the initial date order so that the most recent winner appears at the top of the table? - Cuddy Wifter (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- As the default, you mean? MeegsC | Talk 10:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. I think the current Champion Jockey is more likely to be of interest to enquirers, and should appear at the top of the list, without having to go to the bottom of the page to find this information. Also, when next years winner is added it appears when the page initially opens. Just my 2 cents worth. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good point! I'll work on reversing it. MeegsC | Talk 09:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. Any other suggestions? MeegsC | Talk 10:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good point! I'll work on reversing it. MeegsC | Talk 09:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. I think the current Champion Jockey is more likely to be of interest to enquirers, and should appear at the top of the list, without having to go to the bottom of the page to find this information. Also, when next years winner is added it appears when the page initially opens. Just my 2 cents worth. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- As the default, you mean? MeegsC | Talk 10:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Cantering and galloping leads
On Lead (leg) there is a content dispute re the relative merits of transverse and rotatory leads. Eg, cantering disunited and round gallop. See Talk:Lead (leg). --Una Smith (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Can someone correct the vandalism inflicted upon the Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century entry? Furthermore block and/or ban the user of said changes? I'm not sure if the person understood that the list came from a publication or just wanted to voice their idiotic view of horse racing's leaders. --Kellsboro Jack (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Once again the fans of Secretariat are at it again with vandalzing this list. Clearly it is intentional - so how does someone get blocked from making edits with Wikipedia? --Kellsboro Jack (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I undid the changes and dropped the user a warning with the WP:VANDALISM template.imars (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- The anonymous user has returned to the talk page after I suggested a compromise in the article. We quoted Bill Nack's displeasure with the survey. Does anyone have a source for the quote?imars (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine has just put up Thoroughbred as a GA nomination. Thought we'd let ya'll know. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Oddity in the article for Byerley Turk
In paragraph three of this aticle, referring to the scaricity of direct male line progengy of this horse, there is a statement that "he also bred the Byerley Turk mare, founder of Thorougbred family 1 ... " I presume this means that he sired this foundation mare, but I was reluctant to change the wording in the original article, not being sufficiently sure of my horse breeder's vocabulary. Would someone please fix this this, and then delete this post. 161.184.44.108 (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Infobox for jockeys
Horses have them, as do competitors from other sports, why not jockeys? Anyone fancy having a crack at it? Grunners (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- We already have Template:Horseracing personalities infobox. Check out these examples: Eddie Arcaro, Walter Swinburn and Scobie Breasley. - Cuddy Wifter (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's the sort of thing. We've a long way to go to get them on every jockey's page though! Grunners (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Can I suggest we make this an important 'to-do' task? 82.20.251.131 (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Inconsistency with DOD for 1985 Kentucky Derby winner, Spend a Buck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spend_A_Buck
Paragraph one lists DOD as November 24, 2002: "Spend A Buck (born 1982 in western Kentucky, died November 24, 2002 in Brazil) was an American thoroughbred race horse."
Last Paragraph lists DOD as November 24, 2000: "Spend A Buck had a very successful post-racing career standing stud, [2] siring 27 stakes winners with earnings of over $16 million. He died on November 24, 2000 at Haras Bage do Sul in Brazil, following an anaphylactic reaction to penicillin."
- Thanks for pointing out the "typo". It's now fixed. - Cuddy Wifter (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Jockey article in need of NPOV editing
If someone is interested in jockeys there's an article that needs help: Michael Walker (jockey). The current article is very POV and uses un-encyclopedic language. It appears to be all original research and no sources are listed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
New articles on Thoroughbred racing
I have noticed that a number of WikiProjects are using the bot User:AlexNewArtBot to identify possible new articles which are relevent to their particular project; see for example Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/New_articles. Do you think there is merit in doing something similar for Thoroughbred racing, and are there any members of this project with the necessary skills to volunteer to compile a rules set and set up a subpage for new Thoroughbred racing articles? - Cuddy Wifter (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Is up at WP:FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- And is now a Featured Article. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Request Article for Shadai Stallion Station
Hi there. I have been expanding the article on Shiraoi, Hokkaidō and came across mention of Shadai Stallion Station. I was able to add some information about the horse breeder, such as their purchase of War Emblem (for $17 million). What is missing is an article about the horse breeder itself. From what little I have found is that they are world famous, but I do not feel I am able to judge that. I was hoping that someone with a stronger interst in thoroughbred racing might take up interst in this topic and at least write a short article. Any takers? imars (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Article created on June 2, 2009. Froggerlaura (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
New Category
I noticed some horses have been given the Category:Eclipse Award winners which actually did not come into effect untuil 1971. I therefore created a simple new Category:American Champion racehorses to cover all winners prior to that date. I gave it the single name so that like the Eclipse Award category it covers all irrespective of their class. Does everyone agree? Brett Josephson (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 2184 articles are assigned to this project, of which 237, or 10.9%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Stub templates
Hi all -
Hope you don't mind, but I've just updated your project's template page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing/Templates) to show all the different stub templates relating to horse racing. Only the general one was listed on the page, whereas there are separate stub templates for races, racehorses, biographies, and two new ones for venues. Grutness...wha? 07:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Image needs replacement - Frankie Dettori
Hello all...
An image used in the article, specifically Image:Frankie.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.
You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Racing colours template
We have Association Football templates, baseball templates and basketball templates. Does any wiki expert think he/she can come up with a racing colours template? This can then be used on pages relating to specific owners horses and templates for specific races i.e. Kentucky/Epsom Derbies, Grand National etc. If you come up with something give me a shout on my talk page as I'd love to sandbox it on a Grand National race template idea Captainbeecher (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Epsom Gold Cup
The Epsom Gold Cup appears to have been an important race. Is it defunct or was the name changed? If anyone has information on this please add. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Epsom Gold Cup was the former title of the race now known as Coronation Cup (for 4yo+ during Derby Meeting). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.42.121.109 (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)