Talk:Secretariat (horse)

Whats and Whos
Per WP:BRD, individually-named animals are not a thing, they are a being, hence a "who" not a "what." Montanabw (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Article changes discussion
As indicated above, significant changes to a Featured Article should first be discussed on this talk page. Then it can be discussed by others, and a consensus can be found. See Consensus.

As regarding consistency of layout in articles, that is laid out in the policy Manual of Style/Biography. I see nothing in said policy that requires infoboxes between articles of the same subject type to be the same. Regarding the "importance" of article title" as to whether there is disambiguator of (horse) or not, the presence of this or not does not indicate any type of importance. See Disambiguation. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

p.s. In the area where I work, rodeo, all of the 8 events have different infoboxes within them; there is no consistency. For example, the bull riders have a few different types of infobox boxes used in there; and I am pretty sure that there is no policy that recommends this or other types of consistency beyond what the Manual of Style lays out. dawnleelynn(talk) 05:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"Croup" linking style.
Hi there,

Not many people read Wikipedia's style guidelines: In particular, the guidelines on linking. Here is a section of note:

MOS:SUBMARINE

The gist (in the context of single terms) is that the text of a link should be as similar as possible to the text used in the phrase that points to the link. So in this instance, a link should be either


 * croup, or:
 * rump, but not:
 * rump.

Or to put it another way: The purpose of link formatting is to modify a word to fit the surrounding grammar—not to switch it out for a different word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoiledAlaska (talk • contribs) 16:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The word "croup" refers to the topline of the rump of a horse. The article links to the proper page.  There was a long debate years ago about there being a separate article defining the croup as opposed to the rump. No surprise  Montanabw (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

lede.
this article 100% deserves the good article designation, and it has been given that title for a reason: i acknowledge that. however, i feel as though the lede is awfully long. a lot of the information given could be included in the other sections. the lede should be succinct. Ayyydoc (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I feel that the Lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, but this is easily remedied. Also claims like "the greatest of all time" are always highly problematic: how can this be assessed when Europe and N. America use different rating systems? For that text to appear in a FA is a very bad idea. More importantly, there is no mention made in the Lead of the horse's incredible physical qualities that helped make him the phenomenon he was. That is surprising when a whole sub-section is (correctly) devoted to that point. In that regard, the Lead is deficient. Billsmith60 (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Secretariat Racing Into History

 * https://paulickreport.com/horse-care-category/secretariat-racing-into-history-monument-will-be-dedicated-on-march-30
 * https://richmond.com/news/community/mechanicsville-local/well-traveled-secretariat-sculpture-will-preside-over-ashland-holiday-parade/article_f097d3c2-7cd8-11ee-88f2-f71645265eb2.html
 * https://equusmagazine.com/news/virginia-town-set-to-dedicate-secretariat-monument

I think this statue is already referenced in the article, but do we want to include the work's title, Secretariat Racing Into History? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)