Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing/Archive 7
 | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Duplicate Derby Trial Stakes page
There is a duplicate page associated with the Derby Trial Stakes. There is a start up page called The Cliff's Edge Derby Trial that needs to be deleted or merged into the original. I don't know how to go about accomplishing this, but any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Stylteralmaldo (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Tag it with the "merge" tags ( {{mergeto|article to be kept}} and {{merge from|article to be redirected}} ) See WP:MERGE. Montanabw(talk) 20:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Portal:Sports is up for featured portal consideration
This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Closed bolt
I've got an issue with Flyingbolt. User:Visindar has, on at least three occasions now, added or restored a trivial, OT comment on Fort Leney. I've removed it, & asked him to stop adding. It hasn't worked. Moreover, this is virtually the only page he's edited (according to his contributions) since March 2012. Any help would be appreciated. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem with adding the info on Fort Leney since his article does not exist. I don't see a valid reason to keep reverting (especially since it is now edit warring) because the text explains the significance of Fort Leney. A more pressing issue is that the entire article (including Visindar's comment) is not inline referenced and has large blocks of completely unreferenced text, weasel words and peacock terms. Froggerlaura ribbit 04:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Colours
I'd love to be able to add colours to the Grand National pages but by my own admission my editing skills are only basic and would not attempt to create such a graphic. In Football pages. e.g. F A cup Finals they are able to call upon a kit template that allows the editor to show the club colours. On many National pages the colours are described but I've always thought how much better it would look if it were presented in race card format, actually showing the colours. Does anyone out there have the editing confidence to create such a macro? Not sure if this macro from another website would help. http://www.britishhorseracing.com/colours/ Captainbeecher (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've never been good enough to be able to create that sort of thing either, but there is a pattern which is used for Derby winners (e.g. Pour Moi). Maybe someone skillful could edit that to be smaller and usable in a racecard format? --Bcp67 (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Pages like 2012 FA Cup Final use the template
{{football kit}}. This uses a set of predefined shapes in different colour schemes (some of which are generic, such as File:Kit socks grash0607h.png; and some are club-specific, such as File:Kit body chelsea1112h.png) and these shapes are fitted together in the template to make the complete strip. Other than the club-specific strips, football strips are normally found only in a particular set of patterns (plain, stripes, hoops and a few others) and colours (red, white, dark blue, light blue, etc.). See commons:Category:Football kit templates. - It might seem that since jockeys' silks are also restricted to a particular set of patterns and colours, it should not be much bother to produce a set of shapes - body, sleeves, cap - but the number of colours used in jockeys' silks is somewhat greater than the number of colours found in football strips; similarly, there is a far greater diversity of patterns. When you consider the number of permutations, it can be staggering. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah that's why the racing colour templates we use on some of the horse articles are made individually instead of using a kit. Some of the silks are simple bar/check variations but others are more elaborate. Froggerlaura ribbit 16:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- With the exception of certain historical silks, e.g The Queen's, there is actually a finite set of colour/pattern combinations available, as seen on the BHA site [1] so it ought to be possible for some bright spark to create something useful which would work for all but the strangest combinations. I have no idea how to create templates myself but would be willing to give it a try if someone could point me in the right direction. The Pour Moi drawing is excellent by the way, much better than the football kits!Peaky76 (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it's finite: but it's still huge, even though the colours are limited to a choice of 18 (several of which, like beige, are pretty much unheard of in football). Consider the available designs for the body: since there are 25 different patterns to select from, of which one is a plain colour, this means that there are 18 plain colours and 18 x 17 x 24 = 7344 permutations of two different colours and a pattern, for a total of 7362 - and that's not even taking the sleeves or cap into account. Sleeves can have 11 different patterns (plus plain): 18 x 17 x 11 + 18 = 3384 permutations; and the cap can have 9 different patterns (plus plain): 18 x 17 x 9 + 18 = 2772 permutations. We would therefore need to create up to 13518 different image files, although we might be able to use some of the football ones for body & sleeves (but note that if we do share image files with football, we cannot arrange them to match the layout of File:Racing silks of Susan Magnier.svg and similar images). All the caps would need to be created fresh. It's a good thing that all the jockeys wear the same colours below the waist - imagine doing the trousers and boots as well. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm thinking though, and perhaps over simplifying but would it not be the theory that just the 26 body, arm and cap styles need to be created in template form? These are stored as a group of templates from which a user then builds his own kit, adding the required code for primary, secondary and if necessary tirtiary colour themselves as required. The fact that there is a wider range of colours in racing therefore wouldn't really be an issue. As long as the correct hexideciaml codes are used the html would recognise the colour beige with as much ease as it does, red, blue or red. More intricate styles can then be done on an ad hoc basis. e.g. Foinavon [1967 Grand National whose colours no longer fit the standard UK guidelines. If anyone knows how to build the templates I'm happy to guinea pig it on one of the Grand National individual year pages. Captainbeecher (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's good in theory, and would work if we could embed SVG graphics directly into Wikipedia pages - but we can't. For very simple shapes (i.e. squares and rectangles), it's easy to create a template into which a colour value may be passed - but this is not a true image, just some text with CSS styling applied to change the background colour. For anything more complicated than that (such as the circle often used to represent the cap), you need an image which holds both shape and colour (if it were possible to pass the colour as a parameter, this category would be much smaller). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm thinking though, and perhaps over simplifying but would it not be the theory that just the 26 body, arm and cap styles need to be created in template form? These are stored as a group of templates from which a user then builds his own kit, adding the required code for primary, secondary and if necessary tirtiary colour themselves as required. The fact that there is a wider range of colours in racing therefore wouldn't really be an issue. As long as the correct hexideciaml codes are used the html would recognise the colour beige with as much ease as it does, red, blue or red. More intricate styles can then be done on an ad hoc basis. e.g. Foinavon [1967 Grand National whose colours no longer fit the standard UK guidelines. If anyone knows how to build the templates I'm happy to guinea pig it on one of the Grand National individual year pages. Captainbeecher (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it's finite: but it's still huge, even though the colours are limited to a choice of 18 (several of which, like beige, are pretty much unheard of in football). Consider the available designs for the body: since there are 25 different patterns to select from, of which one is a plain colour, this means that there are 18 plain colours and 18 x 17 x 24 = 7344 permutations of two different colours and a pattern, for a total of 7362 - and that's not even taking the sleeves or cap into account. Sleeves can have 11 different patterns (plus plain): 18 x 17 x 11 + 18 = 3384 permutations; and the cap can have 9 different patterns (plus plain): 18 x 17 x 9 + 18 = 2772 permutations. We would therefore need to create up to 13518 different image files, although we might be able to use some of the football ones for body & sleeves (but note that if we do share image files with football, we cannot arrange them to match the layout of File:Racing silks of Susan Magnier.svg and similar images). All the caps would need to be created fresh. It's a good thing that all the jockeys wear the same colours below the waist - imagine doing the trousers and boots as well. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- With the exception of certain historical silks, e.g The Queen's, there is actually a finite set of colour/pattern combinations available, as seen on the BHA site [1] so it ought to be possible for some bright spark to create something useful which would work for all but the strangest combinations. I have no idea how to create templates myself but would be willing to give it a try if someone could point me in the right direction. The Pour Moi drawing is excellent by the way, much better than the football kits!Peaky76 (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah that's why the racing colour templates we use on some of the horse articles are made individually instead of using a kit. Some of the silks are simple bar/check variations but others are more elaborate. Froggerlaura ribbit 16:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Pages like 2012 FA Cup Final use the template
I've been thinking about it today, and it might be possible using overlaid images. That is, for a patterned body, we would have one image for the "background", being the whole body drawn in a plain colour; and a second image which has those parts of the pattern which are in the second colour - the areas corresponding to the first colour would be transparent. So, if the silks had a body comprising a blue star on a yellow background, we would need two images: one for a plain yellow body, and one for a blue star on a transparent background. We would use the same principle for sleeves and caps, and one complete set of silks would therefore need a maximum of six images to draw it. This plan would require at most 810 images, as follows:
- 18 plain bodies - one for each colour
- 18 plain pairs of sleeves - one for each colour
- 18 plain caps - one for each colour
- 432 pattern overlays for bodies - one for each colour/pattern combination (other than plain)
- 180 pattern overlays for sleeves - one for each colour/pattern combination (other than plain)
- 144 pattern overlays for caps - one for each colour/pattern combination (other than plain)
So, to build up silks like these, we would use three images - dark blue body, dark blue sleeves, dark blue cap; and no overlay patterns. These silks would use four images - maroon body, white sleeves, maroon cap and a white star cap overlay. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I have added images to the Talk section of the Grand National 2012 & 1013 pages. These could be presented either in racecard format (numerical order) or in finishing order (as shown). Let me know if you can use these and how they should best be structured. (JockeyColours (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC))
Group/Pattern/Conditions Races
There are a range of articles on this subject, including Group One, Graded stakes race, Group races, Conditions races and more. This is confusing and sometimes inaccurate (e.g. the Group races page refers only to Australian racing, stating that Conditions races are the European equivalent, which is not strictly true - Europe has its own Group Race system, and also has Conditions races which are lower grade and not equivalent in the slightest). Would it be worth merging/tidying these into a more logical format? I would favour an article called Pattern Races (with redirect), with subsections explaining the system in individual jurisdictions. I would be happy to do this, subject to other contributors' thoughts. Peaky76 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Don't get me started. The whole Group/Grade/Conditions thing is a real mess on WP. In Europe, Conditions races include Group races and other weight-for-age races just below group level. The system is not the same as "Graded stakes" in North America or "Group Races" in Australia, both of which include handicap races. And then you have countries like Japan which have a mixture of "International" and "Domestic" Group races. I do sort of understand the topic and would be willing to chip in if you want to take it on. Tigerboy1966 22:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say I sort of understand it as well, although my amateur knowledge is mostly limited to European racing. I'm sure we could do with a specific article on European Pattern races, and I have some written material to hand on the history of the pattern - plus the International Federation of Horse Racing Authories has some detail on its webstite [2]. I'm not quite sure how Listed races fit into the pattern though - always assumed they were more under domestic control. I reckon between us we could come up with some sort of format for this though. Not sure about an article called Pattern Races though as I believe that's solely a European term.--Bcp67 (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've had a quick stab at revising the Group races page, based on the link you provided bcp. The article now refers to European Group Races as well as Australian ones, which was causing problems with some of the links I created, as you spotted below. I've created space for each country/jurisdiction, ready for anyone who fancies elaborating on the matter! I've also created a redirect page for Pattern races which should suffice until we find a better solution. Peaky76 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that where there are stubs, a few well-placed merge tags might be in order. It would be best to have only one or two well-done, thorough articles instead of a bunch of messy stubs. Montanabw(talk) 20:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, none of the four mentioned above (in Peaky's first post) are larger than 6 kb, so they could easily be merged, with significant room left over for expansion. Like Montana says, it's better to have fewer more thorough articles, as opposed to a bunch of messy stubs that require the reader to spend a half hour link-jumping to find what they're trying to learn about. Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that where there are stubs, a few well-placed merge tags might be in order. It would be best to have only one or two well-done, thorough articles instead of a bunch of messy stubs. Montanabw(talk) 20:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've had a quick stab at revising the Group races page, based on the link you provided bcp. The article now refers to European Group Races as well as Australian ones, which was causing problems with some of the links I created, as you spotted below. I've created space for each country/jurisdiction, ready for anyone who fancies elaborating on the matter! I've also created a redirect page for Pattern races which should suffice until we find a better solution. Peaky76 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say I sort of understand it as well, although my amateur knowledge is mostly limited to European racing. I'm sure we could do with a specific article on European Pattern races, and I have some written material to hand on the history of the pattern - plus the International Federation of Horse Racing Authories has some detail on its webstite [2]. I'm not quite sure how Listed races fit into the pattern though - always assumed they were more under domestic control. I reckon between us we could come up with some sort of format for this though. Not sure about an article called Pattern Races though as I believe that's solely a European term.--Bcp67 (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles for review
I've recently expanded Ballabriggs and Imperial Commander (horse) with pedigree and more detail of race history etc. I feel they can now be upgraded from Start/Stub status. Please could someone check them over for me. Is there some way I should be tagging these for someone to review? Peaky76 (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll take a look. Tigerboy1966 22:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just did a couple of minor link fixes - I'm not a great one for changing the essence of what people have written. One of the links was for jumps Graded races, which was pointing to Australian Group races - presumably this what started your thoughts above. I don't know if there is a tagging for review mechanism but I'd always have a look at your edits, time allowing. There's something called "Did You Know" as well which can drawn attention to recently-created or expanded articles, which you might be interested in - Tigerboy knows a fair bit about this. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Brisbane Racing Club
Is it possible to have some admin resurrect the article Brisbane Racing Club, which was deleted in December 2009? Probably there was not much in the article at first since the merged club happened in July 2009 - merger of the Queensland Turf Club and the Brisbane Turf Club. This is the major Racing club in the Brisbane area. I'll add more info with reference once it is active. Please inform that it is and I'll go on from there. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think that as racing in Australia is run by the various "clubs" there should be an article for each one and a common format and infobox. I'm quite happy to have a bash at creating an article. Tigerboy1966 14:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)14:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I was looking at NYRA and there's no infobox. I've added more references to the resurrected BRC and fixed the official web page's dead link. If you can append an infobox then I'll use it as a template for other racing clubs in OZ as I get to them. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. Any of you interested in starting a page for the 2013 Kentucky Derby? I would love to help if I can.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Jeez, there isn't one yet?!?! Yes, 2012 Kentucky Derby was created about May 1 last year so it's time! Go for it, and let us know when the link is live (I'm working on some other projects and have minimal time, but I fully support getting it going!) Montanabw(talk) 00:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I will help out when I can (even though I'm a Brit!) Peaky76 (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like the format is pretty standard from year to year; if you create the basic template and the general outline, we can add in more details as they emerge. Montanabw(talk) 21:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Merger proposal odds etc
I've started a merger discussion here: Talk:Odds#Proposed_merger_from_Fixed-odds_betting regarding the various articles on odds/bookmaking etc. All of the great articles that tigerboy and others have done on horses link in there one way or another, so it is very important to this project. It seems to me that it makes sense to have an overarching Odds article, with supplementary articles about Fixed-odds/Parimutuel/Spread betting etc. This is not how it's structured at the moment, with duplicated material across all the various pages, which is confusing to the casual reader (and not so casual reader too!). Please join in the discussion. Peaky76 (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I favor bringing a bunch of stubs together into one coherent article and then doing spinoffs if and when a particular section gets detailed enough to warrant it. Montanabw(talk) 01:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Proposed deletion for Nose (horseracing)
Nose (horseracing) has been nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nose (horseracing). Any opinions? 22:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Probably needs to be moved into the horse racing glossaries (see Glossary of equestrian terms for the links to both horse racing glossaries.) Montanabw(talk) 01:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Sandboxing
Hi gang, I'm sandboxing a new article on Paynter (horse), here: User:Montanabw/Sandbox 4. As I don't do a lot of racehorse "biographies," I'm inviting any and all of the usual suspects to trot over and lend a hand. I have located a shitload of source material on his illness and other assorted details. For those of you in the UK, this horse was second in the Belmont and won the Haskell last year, but then got sick and after damn near dying just came back to the track today to win a 7-furlong race by five lengths after having survived laminitis and colon surgery last year that almost killed him. Great story. Also a genetic full brother (same sire, full sister dams) to Oxbow (horse). Montanabw(talk) 23:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Paynter is out of the sandbox, and Oxbow is at FAC. Cheers, all~! Montanabw(talk) 18:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Really liked the Paynter article, what a good story that is! --Bcp67 (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Was fun to write, and User:Froggerlaura helped me too! Montanabw(talk) 22:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
A mission for anyone interested
For anyone wanting to take a break from racehorse biographies and do a horse biography on recipients of the Dicken Medal, the conversation - and three links to new stubs that might get someone a DYK - is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Equine#Category:Dickin_Medal_recepients_should_be_completed. It sounds like a great project, but we don't have very many real active members at WPEQ, and we all have other fish to fry... so sharing the word here. Thanks Montanabw(talk) 17:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Post over at Equine talk. Limited coverage beyond medal-worthy incidents. Found color info and where buried, but can find nothing on age or background info. There is a nice photograph of the three horses together that I could do a copyright-rationale on, but using it on three separate articles would be a stretch. Suggest merging together for a more substantial, greater than a paragraph article. Will see what I can dig up ;) Froggerlaura ribbit 22:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Answered there too. Montanabw(talk) 19:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
FYI on FA! Hooray!
Oxbow (horse) has been promoted to Featured Article! Hooray! And thanks to all here at WP Horse racing who helped with the effort. (I'm giving away pony prizes, if you worked on Oxbow and didn't get one, let me know!) Montanabw(talk) 22:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
We have received an e-mail at OTRS from a representative of Pimlico Race Course pointing out that the Laurel Dash and the Laurel Turf Cup are two different races, and referring us to this link for details. Would someone please take a look at this? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Categorisation of stud farms
I note that stud farms are categorised under subcategories of Category:Horse farms. I've never heard the phrase "horse farm" being used to refer to a stud farm, and can't find any evidence that its use in this sense is at all widespread, but "stud farm" is universally used and understood. Does anyone know why this strange terminology is being used, and shouldn't it be changed? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Don't know. Is there a separate "stud farm" category in there? Does the "horse farm" category have any associated discussion or an edit history that sheds a clue? My guess is some non-horsey person wanted clearer language. (Non-horsey people have strange notions about horse nomenclature at times, usually implying there is something kinky happening... sigh). Personally, my thinking is renaming the category something like "studs and horse farms" might solve the problem of keeping us horse people happy but also making it clear to non-horse people what is being discussed (given that non-horsey folks think a "stud" is either a good-looking human male or else a type of board used to construct walls of a house). Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 18:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any separate categories for stud farms. I stumbled across this after trying to add Category:Stud farms to Cheveley Park Stud and being surprised to see it come out in red. I wouldn't class myself as a particularly horsey person (although my daughter owns a horse and rides in equestrian events and my son used to work in the betting industry) but I don't remember ever having heard such establishments being called anything other than stud farms, or simply studs when the context is clear, either by horsey people or laymen. I suppose this is a minor issue in the big scheme of things but I was curious to know whether anyone could offer an explanation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Horse breeding and studs or its subcats? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- The relevant subcategory is the one that I am talking about, Category:Horse farms. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I just went to stud farm to see which cats that was in. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh great, and then we have 10 gazillion "horse farms in (insert nation here)" cats too, so to fix one, we'd have to do them all. (A mass move request could do this) And of course, this isn't just Thoroughbred farms (though that's the bulk) but also Warmblood state studs, and other major big breed farms of various sorts. (Keeping in mind that west of the Mississippi, we call stud farms a "horse RANCH") Here's a thought: Could we move the "horse farms by nation" cats to the main Horse breeding and studs category (thus blanking Horse farms?). Then we could ask the "horse farms by nation" cats to all be moved to "stud farms by... " or "studs and horse farms by ..." Or something? Or, more to the point, is this a big enough problem to be worth the hassle to fix? I think we should let this sit and be discussed for a few days before acting. And can we cross-post this to WikiProject Equine for comment? (Much prefer to work it out here than post it to a drahmahz board without a clear consensus of the horse projects.) Montanabw(talk) 22:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not inclined to expend any great effort on fixing this, but if anyone else wants to do so I'll support any proposal that gets rid of "horse farm", which suggests to my mind an establishment raising horses for their meat. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, there is also "dairy farm," but I see your point. If the momentum builds and someone wants to do it, I'm not going to kick too hard one way or the other. ;-) Montanabw(talk) 16:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not inclined to expend any great effort on fixing this, but if anyone else wants to do so I'll support any proposal that gets rid of "horse farm", which suggests to my mind an establishment raising horses for their meat. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh great, and then we have 10 gazillion "horse farms in (insert nation here)" cats too, so to fix one, we'd have to do them all. (A mass move request could do this) And of course, this isn't just Thoroughbred farms (though that's the bulk) but also Warmblood state studs, and other major big breed farms of various sorts. (Keeping in mind that west of the Mississippi, we call stud farms a "horse RANCH") Here's a thought: Could we move the "horse farms by nation" cats to the main Horse breeding and studs category (thus blanking Horse farms?). Then we could ask the "horse farms by nation" cats to all be moved to "stud farms by... " or "studs and horse farms by ..." Or something? Or, more to the point, is this a big enough problem to be worth the hassle to fix? I think we should let this sit and be discussed for a few days before acting. And can we cross-post this to WikiProject Equine for comment? (Much prefer to work it out here than post it to a drahmahz board without a clear consensus of the horse projects.) Montanabw(talk) 22:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I just went to stud farm to see which cats that was in. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- The relevant subcategory is the one that I am talking about, Category:Horse farms. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Horse breeding and studs or its subcats? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any separate categories for stud farms. I stumbled across this after trying to add Category:Stud farms to Cheveley Park Stud and being surprised to see it come out in red. I wouldn't class myself as a particularly horsey person (although my daughter owns a horse and rides in equestrian events and my son used to work in the betting industry) but I don't remember ever having heard such establishments being called anything other than stud farms, or simply studs when the context is clear, either by horsey people or laymen. I suppose this is a minor issue in the big scheme of things but I was curious to know whether anyone could offer an explanation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Death date in infobox for named horses
Cross-posting this from WPEQ: Keep conversation consolidated over there, please. Montanabw(talk) 18:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
{{Infobox named horse}} now has a |death_date= parameter; see, for example, use in Sergeant Reckless, Joe Reed II or Jet Deck. Please feel free to add it to other articles using this infobox. For full DMY/ MDY dates, you can use {{death date}} or {{death date and age}} to encode the value; see example in Moon Deck. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- We also have {{Infobox thoroughbred racehorse}}. Do these boxes dovetail? And, for all at WPEQ, I am wondering if we should rename this one to "infobox named racehorse" to accommodate the Standardbreds and Quarter horses, but then get rid of all the racing stat parameters in infobox named horse. Thoughts? (Don't change anything more yet, Andy, while we sort out what we need). Also, I don't think we need the species microformat on named horse infobooxen (unless, perhaps, hidden completely if computer stuff requires it?) I'm going to cross-post this at WP Horse racing, as they will also have concerns.Montanabw(talk) 18:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Thoroughbreds only?
Most articles on individual horse races begin with the something like "The Tigerboy Stakes is a Group One horse race open to two-year-old Thoroughbred colts". My issue is with the word "Thoroughbred". When I was looking up some results of North American races I found that they were restricted to Thoroughbreds, but this is NOT the case with British races (sorry I haven't checked elsewhere). Of course the overwhelming majority of the horses which contest these races are Tb, but the odd Non-Tb does pop up in the lists of winners: Quashed, Black Tarquin and Irish Elegance spring to mind. I am minded to take the word Thoroughbred out of the intros to British flat races unless someone can convince me otherwise. Tigerboy1966 20:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Agree totally with you. From memory of seeing race conditions in racecards I can't recall seeing any UK races restricted to Tbs (and jump racing has plenty of non-Tb types - e.g AQPS winners of recent Gold Cups and Grand Nationals). I'll start taking the wording out when I update current races. Bcp67 (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)--
- The Grand National (definitely), and the Cheltenham Gold Cup (probably) are open to non-Thoroughbreds; but I believe that the five Classic Races are for Thoroughbreds only. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well Quashed won the Oaks, which was a classic the last time I looked, and she was definitely not TB Tigerboy1966 00:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- The Grand National (definitely), and the Cheltenham Gold Cup (probably) are open to non-Thoroughbreds; but I believe that the five Classic Races are for Thoroughbreds only. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- On a tangent but related, AQPS has been on the WPEQ cleanup list for ages. Anyone here want to help? Montanabw(talk) 22:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
WPEQ Talkback
Inviting WP horse racing members to comment here: A ticket to insanity or a great idea?. So many great phrases, so little time Montanabw(talk) 22:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Rousillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Rousillon (horse) -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion is requested at the above deletion discussion. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
...and here's another: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sanstable. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Gang, these both look like userspace drafts that were created on a userpage of an account that had been long abandoned. Take a peek and see if you want to userfy either one into your own sandbox and maybe whip them into a mainspace article. Both pages are about horses that do exist, though I didn't check notability. Montanabw(talk) 22:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Once loved and nurtured, then abandoned by her owner in a cold sandbox, Pure Clan is now residing at the Tigerboy Equine Rescue Facility. Sabirli will be joining her as soon as we sort out some problems with his paperwork. Tigerboy1966 21:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Stub article is in mainspace at Pure Clan. Froggerlaura ribbit 22:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sabirli rewritten pretty much from scratch. Wish my Turkish was a little better. Tigerboy1966 22:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Once loved and nurtured, then abandoned by her owner in a cold sandbox, Pure Clan is now residing at the Tigerboy Equine Rescue Facility. Sabirli will be joining her as soon as we sort out some problems with his paperwork. Tigerboy1966 21:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- LOL and hugs you two! Great work! Montanabw(talk) 02:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Proposed category rename
I've proposed a rename for Category:Breeders' Cup Ladies' Classic winners to reflect the race's reversion to its former name. Any comments to: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 31#Category:Breeders' Cup Ladies' Classic winners please. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Calypso
I came across Hi Calypso and question the notability of this horse, but as I have no expertise in this area and couldn't find any notability guidelines for horse racing, can I hand it over for someone here to deal with please? --Derek Andrews (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- She won a couple of pattern races, which would be notable enough to have some sort of sources like a Racing Post result and maybe a mention on racing websites, but I agree with your questioning - she was hardly a major equine figure. I see I added some cats to the article, but it's a shocking article, no references and probably either needs improving or deleting! --Bcp67 (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not as bad, but Teamster by the same editor needs better refs. Froggerlaura ribbit 19:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't our general rule that a race horse has to have a Group I or Grade I win to be considered "notable" in the eyes of WP Horse Racing? (Or a significant role due to their offspring?) I'll prod tag these to see what happens. These don't seem to meet that. I don't care deeply either way, but I'll be bold. Montanabw(talk) 01:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Teamster isn't just the by same editor, he had the same owner (COI?). Wins at G2 and G3 level are a good start, but I would expect a horse without a G1 success to either have enough coverage of their racing career to pass GNG (Provideo) or to have been a notable success at stud (Kind). Tigerboy1966 08:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. I prod tagged the both of 'em. Let's see what happens. Montanabw(talk) 19:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Just to point out why I am not in favour of a hard and fast rule about "notable" = G1 win. Firstly G1 still means different things in different places (handicaps can be G1 in America and Australia, but not in Europe and Japan). Secondly G1 has meant different things at different times, especially in Europe. Head-slappingly obvious G1s like the Haydock Sprint Cup, St James's Palace Stakes, Coronation Stakes, Fillies' Mile and Sussex Stakes spent years languishing in G2 or even G3 before the Pattern Committee saw sense. My rule of thumb at the moment is that a G1 winner is notable enough to have an article, and that two G1 wins mean that a horse probably should have an article. Tigerboy1966 21:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Totally agree with that, and with your point of view that extensive coverage can establish notability too for those who didn't win at the highest level. It's hard to extend a G1 "rule" to the jumps as well - Red Rum I suspect never so much as ran in a Grade 1 steeplechase in his life, but you'd be hard-pressed to name a more notable racehorse in the UK. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- No disagreement here. I prod tagged the above more for the obvious COI and evident non-notability than for simply flunking an initial screen. If anyone disagrees with the prod tag and tosses it, I won't have hurt fwee-wings. (grin) Montanabw(talk) 03:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Totally agree with that, and with your point of view that extensive coverage can establish notability too for those who didn't win at the highest level. It's hard to extend a G1 "rule" to the jumps as well - Red Rum I suspect never so much as ran in a Grade 1 steeplechase in his life, but you'd be hard-pressed to name a more notable racehorse in the UK. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Teamster isn't just the by same editor, he had the same owner (COI?). Wins at G2 and G3 level are a good start, but I would expect a horse without a G1 success to either have enough coverage of their racing career to pass GNG (Provideo) or to have been a notable success at stud (Kind). Tigerboy1966 08:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't our general rule that a race horse has to have a Group I or Grade I win to be considered "notable" in the eyes of WP Horse Racing? (Or a significant role due to their offspring?) I'll prod tag these to see what happens. These don't seem to meet that. I don't care deeply either way, but I'll be bold. Montanabw(talk) 01:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Do we have a problem?
Did anybody know this was going on? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_sport_horse&diff=582988778&oldid=567028315
And did the move just foul up about 9000 race horse articles? Montanabw(talk) 18:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Here's the TfD. Do you have examples of fouled up race horse articles? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing that the projects were notified... and they are NOT equivalent - jockey isn't exactly an item that works for sporthorses! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Myself and one other editor have asked the closing administrator to re-consider. The reasons for doing so are good, I think we'll get a positive response....William 20:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Can you post us the link? Also recommend while restoring everything, to rename the template just Inbobox racehorse, as we do use it for Quarter Horse and Standardbred race horses sometimes. As Ealdgyth noted, sport horses don't have jockeys. (that template is primarily for horses shown in the Olympics and other International level competition) We need the two to be separate. FYI, Infobox named horse encompasses the animals that are not race horses or sport horses. Montanabw(talk) 20:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Myself and one other editor have asked the closing administrator to re-consider. The reasons for doing so are good, I think we'll get a positive response....William 20:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing that the projects were notified... and they are NOT equivalent - jockey isn't exactly an item that works for sporthorses! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Redrose. If Plasticspork does not act, is there a different venue we can go to on this? Montanabw(talk) 01:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- WP:DRV would probably be the next step though I've never discussed a TFD there. I can ask another administrator for advice if and when needed but I think the TFD will be reopened or overturned once the closing administrator learns of our concerns. I'm going to notify the TFD participants....William 01:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, reopening would be simpler. If you contacted Plasticspork, so did I. If s/he is busy, can someone else reopen it?? Montanabw(talk) 03:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please note that Plasticspork (talk · contribs) is not an admin, and did not process the TfD in question - but is the same real-life person as Plastikspork (talk · contribs), who is and did. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, reopening would be simpler. If you contacted Plasticspork, so did I. If s/he is busy, can someone else reopen it?? Montanabw(talk) 03:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, WP:TFD is most likely the proper venue. The reason that WilliamJE has "never discussed a TFD there" is probably that they're very rare: most deletions taken to WP:DRV are for articles, but it covers all namespaces. In fact, I've been back through the last 12 months of DRV and can only find two cases involving a deleted template (14 August 2013 and 12 August 2013) - and none concerning a merged template. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- WP:DRV would probably be the next step though I've never discussed a TFD there. I can ask another administrator for advice if and when needed but I think the TFD will be reopened or overturned once the closing administrator learns of our concerns. I'm going to notify the TFD participants....William 01:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Redrose. If Plasticspork does not act, is there a different venue we can go to on this? Montanabw(talk) 01:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys. I apologise for not notifying the WikiProject but I was pretty sure that templates that are connected to WikiProject automatically trigger a bot to notify when they are send to xfD. I am also surpriced that nobody realised through watchlists for 14 days while this TfD was open. Anyway, can someone please write here (or anywhere else) what are the differences between the two templates? Not between thoroughbred race horses and sport horses. What is to be done is to realise the difference in appearance. If the problem is only some extra parameters we can arrange that via documentation or we could make the one template a fork for the other. Thanks ans sorry once more for not notifying. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- There were two reasons that relevant WikiProjects were not notified through the Article alerts system. First, the pre-merge Template talk:Infobox sport horse (which is now deleted, but admins may view it at Special:Undelete/Template talk:Infobox sport horse/old) did not bear any WikiProject banners (in fact, the entire text was the sentence "Shouldn't there be a field for the death date of a horse?" plus a signature). Second, no
{{subst:tfm|Infobox sport horse}}was placed on{{Infobox thoroughbred racehorse}}- if this had been done, the{{Thoroughbred_racing}}which had been on Template talk:Infobox thoroughbred racehorse (now moved w/o redir to Template talk:Infobox sport horse) would have triggered an alert at Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing/Article alerts, like this CfD did. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's better to wait for a reply from the closing admin before trying DRV or other venues. Having said that, I don't really see a problem with the merger. If the 'jockey' parameter is not necessary for some articles, it can simply be left blank. If that's not the only issue that arose from this merger, providing some diffs of 'fouled up' articles would be useful for the discussion.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- The problem with the merger is that there was no opportunity for discussion of it among those who actually use the infoboxes. That is because the relevant projects were not notified, even though I specifically asked on 16 November whether they had been. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I saw you mentioned it. The editor who started the TFD apologized up above. What did and did not happen is past. Now we need to hear from the closing administrator on what the next step is. They haven't edited in two days but this is a holiday time in the United States. I am certain we'll be hearing from them soon....William 02:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with JLAN, (nods). As I see it, we have three horse "biography" infoboxes, two of which are within WikiProject equine (WPEQ) and one for WP Horse racing:
- 1) Thoroughbred racehorse, which was/is intended to be used for all the WP horse racing biographies, also included use for some non-Thoroughbreds. WP Horse racing is way bigger than Wikiproject Equine in raw numbers (about 9000+ articles compared to 3000+ articles, mostly due to all the race horse and jockey/trainer/owner biographies tagged within). This infobox should not have been merged; it (arguably) could be renamed "Race horse infobox" or something similar. This infobox is transcluded into thousands of articles, or if it's not, it should be. It includes all statistical material relevant to race horses.
- 2) Infobox named horse (used to be something like just infobox horse, but that caused confusion), which was for all the other horse "biographies" that weren't race horses, i.e. show horses, breeding stock, other famous horses of whatever ilk...
- 3) Sport horse infobox, which was a spinoff from infobox named horse, and apparently was in some state of needing a bit more completeness, but was (if my memory serves) designed to be of use for horses such as those that competed in the Olympics and other international disciplines, as the other infoboxes didn't really meet all the needs for these horses, such as the rider (NOT a "jockey") who won medals on them, possibly a table of accomplishments, etc.
Essentially, all three infobox templates are, as far as I can tell, necessary because they contain different parameters and defaults. And at the very least, the merge into the Sport Horse infobox was clunky. However, before going further, I want to hear the views of everyone else on the project. I will also ping WPEQ on this matter. Montanabw(talk) 02:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, I think you're right about the necessity for the infobox templates. If another TFD takes place, I probably take part in it. My editing to horse racing articles has rarely if ever had anything to do with templates. I sometimes do edits to harness racing related articles, and created ones on Dave Palone and Catello Manzi, both of whom are HR Hall of Fame drivers. I am related to Manzi. My father owned a horse called 'Fast Clip' who finished 2nd in the 2nd heat of the 1972 Little Brown Jug. We broke a world record that day and still lost by a length to Strike Out. Back to the infobox templates. The new discussion would be best done by editors who know the templates much better than I. I helped the project out the last two days because of other editor's concerns....William 02:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- as far as I can tell, and as pointed out above, this is what happened to merge the templates: (1) template:infobox sport horse was moved to template:infobox sport horse/old, (2) template:infobox thoroughbred racehorse was moved to template:infobox sport horse, and (3) a 'breed' parameter and 'wins' parameter were added to the template. so the merged template is the old template:infobox thoroughbred racehorse, and the redirect is in place so you can still use it as before. given the lack of discussion here over the past four days, I think we can safely assume that nothing was messed up, and nothing actually changed in the articles. you can still type {{infobox thoroughbred racehorse}} just like you did before, and you can still type {{infobox sport horse}} as you did before. everything will appear exactly as they did before. you don't have to use the 'jockey' parameter if it's no appropriate, and you don't have to use the 'breed' parameter if don't want to. if the issue is with the primary name of the template, then we can move it to something else, and keep the redirects. the simple fact is that the two templates were nearly identical with the only difference being the omission of parameters from one or the other. so, there was no loss of information by merging the two, just the addition of the breed parameter to the {{infobox thoroughbred racehorse}} template to merge the two. the history is all preserved in {{infobox sport horse}} and {{infobox sport horse/old}} if anyone wants to review the differences, but I see no actual problems here or any need for multiple templates that do the exact same thing (they do not have 'different parameters and defaults' and the merger was very smooth or you would have seen a change in the appearance in the articles). Frietjes (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- One problem, pointed out here, is that other sport horses have "riders" not "jockeys" so we need to have both uses. Basically this project is small, and most of the people posting here would like to see it put back, we're also sad that the project was not even consulted before this was done. A sport horse and a race horse are terms of art and as such are not the same thing. Montanabw(talk) 02:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- and the old sport horse infobox did not have a rider or jockey parameter, so nothing has changed. the simple fact is that the two templates were 99% identical, with one have a subset of the parameters of the other. if the parameters do not apply, then don't use them. I am still waiting for someone to demonstrate a real problem with the merger. Frietjes (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- One problem, pointed out here, is that other sport horses have "riders" not "jockeys" so we need to have both uses. Basically this project is small, and most of the people posting here would like to see it put back, we're also sad that the project was not even consulted before this was done. A sport horse and a race horse are terms of art and as such are not the same thing. Montanabw(talk) 02:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- How about, "now it has a really stupid name that no one agreed on?" (sigh) Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- then move it? or merge it with {{infobox named horse}} (sigh). Frietjes (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- How about, "now it has a really stupid name that no one agreed on?" (sigh) Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like problem is now solved. Except that Plasticspork needed to toss the sport horse info from the race horse box. Not sure what to do with the old sport horse one, probably merge what was relevant with Infobox named horse. (No clue why someone created that one anyway; no real need.) Montanabw(talk) 23:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Another need to alert the project
check this one out, all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thrush_(horse)#Requested_move Montanabw(talk) 21:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Thoughts on prod tagging?
Do we keep this or do we dump it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_Control_(horse) Other than a huge sale price, nothing notable other than the bad accident prior to this year's Breeders' Cup, I don't think he ever won a stakes race. Montanabw(talk) 03:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Dump it. Besides being the first foal of Azeri and a tragic end, his racing career wasn't much (eerily similar to Makybe Diva's Rockstardom in that regard). Deceased horse, so no stud career. Froggerlaura ribbit 05:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep it: I think the horse attracted enough RS coverage [3] to pass GNG. I'm biased, as I tried to knock it into shape in 2012. See also Snaafi Dancer and The Green Monkey who were only notable for what happened in the sales ring, although to be fair in those cases a world record was involved. Tigerboy1966 06:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've no strong feelings either way, other than the tone is still kind of iffy, even with Tigerboy's cleanup. $7.7 mil for a dead horse; sad. If it counts as "weird horse tale," then OK. Montanabw(talk) 20:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I can't see any compelling reason to keep this article, with apologies to my learned colleague Tigerboy. The horse didn't achieve anything of any note (and granted nor did the sales record-holders mentioned above, but Snaafi Dancer at least is a well-known name in UK racing). Not sure I'd back such a slight weird horse tale. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've no strong feelings either way, other than the tone is still kind of iffy, even with Tigerboy's cleanup. $7.7 mil for a dead horse; sad. If it counts as "weird horse tale," then OK. Montanabw(talk) 20:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Writ Keeper!
For the MOST PERFECT userbox EVER! Montanabw(talk) 23:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
| rei | Every time you say "free reign" when you mean "free rein", this user dies a little inside. |
The end of Google news archive searches?
When either starting news articles, or attempting to improve existing ones, I have used Google News archive countless times. Google News Archive was merged into Google News over two years ago but you could still search it archives. That may have ended. Since yesterday when trying to do a archive via a archive search page I had long ago saved, I have been receiving 'The search option you have selected is currently unavailable'. Any links to archived articles still work. This for an example[4]. However if you try to do a archive search from that page, again you are stymied. I don't see a way to do an archive search from Google News main page either. It appears Google News archive searches are at an end. With it the job of working on anything that is dated from 15 or more years ago has become much harder....William 15:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- They have reformatted the archive search feature to simplify searching by date (it's actually better now). Go to Google News and select search tools from the top menu, under "any time" select custom range (this will give you hits as far back as ~1860) to narrow search to particular date range. Not as cool as what they once had, but it is a lot better than sifting through 25 pages of hits looking for the pertinent ones. Froggerlaura ribbit 18:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- So, archive search is gone, custom range still works. Tigerboy1966 09:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I think we are being asked to weigh in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Topics_to_include Looks like they'd like a general "presumption of notability" guideline for people... horse racing not on the list, though rodeo is... Pitke pinged us over at WPEQ, figured here is also a good place for interested people to be found. I've already commented there. Montanabw(talk) 19:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Have put a comment on there about having a specific set of guidelines for notability for horse racing, which I think we do need. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
::Just now? Didn't see it unless you just put it up there... (?) Montanabw(talk) 18:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Never mind, saw it. Montanabw(talk) 18:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Any Spanish speakers here?
WPEQ issue, not WP Horse racing, but I could use some help here if anyone can help with looking at Spanish language sources: Need help figuring out what is going on with the Spanish Government's Stud farm program. See Talk:Yeguada Militar de Jerez de la Frontera where I posted a longish piece on the need to accurately update the article. Montanabw(talk) 04:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Notability guidelines
OK, I live here now. Note to all that a question of adding notability guidelines for horse racing (people and - possibly - maybe horses) is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Topics_to_include. On that note, I just added Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Equestrian_sport, but specifically excluded any discussion of horse racing there, as I think this project needs to weigh in and create a freestanding section separate from the FEI/Olympic stuff in the Equestrian Sport section. JMO. Anyone who cares please do weigh in here or over there. Otherwise, Pitke and I will probably just keep making stuff up as we go! (LOL!) Given all the horse "biographies" we have here, we may also want to discuss if we want to create something like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Figure_Skating/Notability. Montanabw(talk) 17:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing/Notability. Come and play! Montanabw(talk) 18:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Categories discussion
Friendly discussion on reorganizing the horse breeding categories here if anyone wants to comment: Category talk:Horse breeding and studs Montanabw(talk) 23:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Seeking the collective wisdom
I've been pinged to look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Furosemide Use in Horse Racing, but I'm more a WPEQ guru than a WP Horse racing guru, so those of you who follow these issues may want to see what I had to say over there and offer your own views. The AfC reviewer is a very good one, but a non-horse person. Montanabw(talk) 03:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there a jockey guru in the house?
Is anyone here the regular whipper-outer of jockey biographies? Looks like we will need to update year-end rankings see here and I was wondering if someone usually does that. We also need new articles on Luis Saez, who is now the regular rider of Will Take Charge and is now ninth for the year in USA jockey standings - I presume people in the top 10 nationally for a year are sufficiently notable? We should also do Junior Alvarado who is 10th (and, interestingly, also rode Will Take Charge in a race). We are also missing Irad Ortiz, Jr. (5th) and there is an argument for the guy in 11th place Jose L. Ortiz. Is anyone here the standard-bearer for quick articles? Montanabw(talk) 07:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)