User talk:Socruise

Sea-Bird
Discuss the name issue on the talkpage. That's what I'm trying to do. If you like I can explain how to reference things properly. Rule 1, don't just keep reverting and asserting that you are right. It won't work!  Tigerboy1966  12:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tigerboy1966, not sure if this is the correct way to contact you. I am not trying to be difficult, I assure you. I would like to mention that it is your modern usage of the name Sea-Bird that I bring into question. You are correct but that was not the usage at the time of the horse's racing career. It is a matter of which stance you take - contemporary or modern. I prefer the former and you do not. Is there a compromise here? Thank you for contacting me. So Cruise.
 * the tricky thing is that many horses were given what might be called exonyms when racing abroad because a horse of a similar name had already been registered. It goes back at least to Whisk Broom II. My take on the Sea-Bird, Sea Bird, Sea Bird II is this: there was a horse called Sea-Bird. When he raced abroad he was referred to as Sea Bird II as there were other "Sea Bird"s. Modern writers have gone back to calling him by his "correct" name. It is a bit silly that few people can agree on the name of one of the best horses ever. I prefer Sea-Bird as it's more useful. If you type Sea Bird into Wikipedia, you get articles about Guillemots and Kittiwakes. With Sea-Bird you go straight to the horse. I am copying this to the article talk page.   Tigerboy1966   13:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a good point you make. I've noticed how you get referred to the bird not the horse as well. All I wanted was that readers could see that the horse was widely cited as Sea Bird at the time of his racing career. I possess many of the racing publications of the 1960 - 1968 era and both Timeform and the Tote Racing Annuals refer to Sea Bird ll and the Official History of the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe 1965-1982 by Arthur Fitzgerald refers to Sea Bird. In his Author's Note, Fitzgerald writes and I quote exactly: 'In this book all the horses are referred to as they appeared in either the French, English or Irish stud books at birth, therefore, for example, Sea Bird is not named Sea Bird II nor is Nijinsky Nijinsky II'. This I feel, is pertinent.
 * Mad with jealousy as I only have the Timeform annuals for 1983, 1984 and 1985. If you check the articles on Pebbles etc you will see how I use these as references. It's not completely straightforward (nothing on wikipedia is). I save all of my book references on a word document and then paste them in as required. The post-nominal numbers are almost always unnecessary. It's not as if anyone is likely to search wikipedia for another horse called Nijinsky or Sea(-)Bird. So it all comes down to that pesky little punctuation mark. My opinion is that Sea-Bird is the most useful title although you could certainly make a case for Sea Bird II as the most common name. The article certainly needs a section to explain the names. And before you ask, YES, I am definitely guilty of cherry-picking my sources to support my pov!  Tigerboy1966  14:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)