Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing/Archive 14

Northern Dancer GA
Hi there, I was wondering if anyone else would like to help me get the Northern Dancer article in GA or even FA shape. Looking for suggestions on both content and style, plus places where we might want to dig a little deeper. I've got two excellent books to comb for any desired details, plus can go through the NYTimes archives to expand on key sections. Just looking for perspective. Jlvsclrk (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely deserves to be a GA or FA. I'll trot over to look at style, but I'm not super active on WP at the moment, so if you want me to do anything specific, post on my talkpage so I get an email ping...  Montanabw (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've submitted for GAR if anyone wants to take a look. Jlvsclrk (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It passed! Yay and thanks to all who helped. Can anyone think of a good hook for DYK? First Canadian-bred to win KD? Only horse to win both KD & Queen's Plate? Called by the NYT the leading male-line progenitor of his breed? Combination of 1 and 3? Jlvsclrk (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Gulfstream Park Turf Handicap/Pegasus World Cup Turf
The Gulfstream Park Turf Handicap is now known as the Pegasus World Cup Turf. It can't really be found on google or other search engines unless it is officially moved over. I attempted to do so, but there were issues with it. Can anyone fix it?

Thanks KatoKungLee (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Issue is that Pegasus World Cup Turf is a redirect to the current article title. You'll need to raise a RM to switch the titles around. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Definition of Major Wins
I come across a problem fairly regularly where non-Grade 1 wins are added into the "Major wins" sections for jump jockeys and trainers. The races usually added are the Grand National, Irish Grand National, Galway Plate and Galway Hurdle, all significant handicap races. Our standard for the Major Wins sections for National Hunt are pretty clear- wins in current Grade 1 races go in, everything else stays out (although there is a different issue where a race has been raised to G1 status and past wins at a lower status are also shown). The problem for jump racing for me is that something like the Grand National is undoubtedly a "major win" by the standards of prize money and prestige, but as a handicap race it's not a G1 race and never will be.

Would it make sense to have a section titled "Grade 1 wins" and another for "other major wins" and some criteria for those? There would be more issues raised there, you could add all sorts of things to other major wins and make it a very long section - example, I'd say that the Ladbrokes Trophy is one of the major races of the British jumps season, whereas the Bet365 Gold Cup has perhaps been one in the past but less prestigious now. Others might not agree with me!! Or do we stick with the cut and dried criteria of a top-level race being a major win (Grade 1 or Group 1 according to country and naming convention) and remove any other wins which get added? --Bcp67 (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say the Grand National is definitely an exception to the rule - its the best known jump race in North America by daylight after all. If I didn't see it listed in a given jockey's major win section, my assumption would be he'd never won it, not that the race itself didn't meet a notability threshold. I'm not as clear about the other three though. I have the same problem with the Canadian Triple Crown / Tiara races since none of them is even graded because of the restriction to Canadian-breds. I think the Plate qualifies as a major win regardless because of notability but the rest not so much. YMMV. Jlvsclrk (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Horse notability
Hi! I'm reviewing Booker (horse), and thought I'd ask if there's any accepted notability standard for race horses. It seems to me this horse is non-notable per the GNG, but I welcome your opinions. Best, PK650 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability threshold is generally a G1 win, which the horse meets. In North America, we generally don't do articles for the borderline G1s but its always a judgement call. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you. I came across Mystic Journey (horse) as well. I appreciate your feedback. Best, PK650 (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Secret Firm & Secret Hello These one-line only articles need attention. They have been on Wikipedia since 2010.

My article Equality Stakes has the tag that needs assessment. The article needs the tag removed or be deleted. Stretchrunner (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfinished articles
Hi everyone. I have been using the break between flat seasons (which seems to get shorter every year) to do some updates on racehorse articles. I've found quite a few articles which are half-finished or stop abruptly half way through a horse's track career. This usually happens when a horse makes a big early splash but then grinds away for a couple more years without achieving anything spectacular. Today I found Idaho which I have been working on just now and Satono Diamond but I bet there will be a few others. Most of these are articles I started but forgot to update. Let me know if you find any others, I'd like to get this finished in the next few weeks. I'm sticking to European and Japanese flat racers up to the end of 2019 because that's what I can manage.  Tigerboy1966  19:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

National Racing Museum and Hall of Fame site down for construction
The National Racing Museum and Hall of Fame external web site has been taken down by its owners National Racing Museum and Hall of Fame. They are making renovations to it. It will be back in July 2020. They are not leaving the existing web site up in the meantime, just a renovation message. This will be extremely inconvenient to all of the hall of fame inductee articles. For the time being, you could use this archive page for links to the main racing hall of fame page: National Racing Museum and Hall of Fame external website.

The 2020 Hall of Fame induction ceremony will take place on Friday, Aug. 7 at 10:30 a.m. at Fasig-Tipton. I have located the following Internet Archive Wayback Machine sites that can be used instead (up to the 2018 inductees). Or, you can just wait for the Internet Archive Bot to do the replacements. Once the new site is up in July, then the citations can be changed to the live links. Here are the links to the archive. It really doesn't matter which ones you use from 2018 or 2019 (up to the captures which just ones that capture the announcement). None of them capture the ones with the 2019 inductees.


 * Hall of Fame horses
 * Hall of Fame jockeys
 * Hall of Fame trainers
 * Pillar of the Turf

Shirley Heights (horse)
The article about Shirley Heights is undergoing a lot of editing at the moment - looks like it is going to need a lot of revision afterwards! Could someone have a look and see if they can repair some of the damage. I'll give it a go myself when I have time. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually on a second look I think it's beyond redemption and needs reverting to this version - . It's barely written in comprehensible English, for example this; "As like this Gr3 event was a warm-up for the step down in class but on the same distance of a mile and two furlongs, Shirley and Starkey went on to win the Heathorn Stakes."  Any views on this article and what we could do about it? --Bcp67 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yikes! I sympathize with the writer wanting to expand on the article of an amazing horse but the style is... I don't want to be mean so I won't say it. If I get stuck at home this/next week, I'll go through and do a thorough edit. Does anyone have time right now to at least tone it down? Jlvsclrk (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Same editor has been "improving" Dashing Blade. Obviously a fan but WP:CIR.  Tigerboy1966  07:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, So, I’ll be bad cop and go over there and just revert to status quo ante per WP:BRD. You guys can be good cop an explain it to them to them.  I’ll also check contribs to see if they’ve done more damage elsewhere.  Montanabw (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

about coronavirus
Until today, only me have edited about Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on sports information, including Grand National meeting. France Galop informed suspend all meeting until 13 April. Also, some jockeys cannot travel during country and jockey clubs ban. This maybe update quickly, please help me. --Horsemeister (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Sources
 * Joao Moreira out of Dubai World Cup as coronavirus chaos ‘forces his hand’
 * Churchill to Make Announcement Regarding Derby Tuesday Morning
 * ALL RACE MEETINGS IN FRANCE SUSPENDED BETWEEN TUESDAY 17 MARCH AND WEDNESDAY 15 APRIL 2020
 * Coronavirus pandemic to halt all racing in Britain from Wednesday until May
 * Excellent. Here's a link to the BloodHorse's page on Covid updates for racing in the United States Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

A horse race that won't be canceled
That's right. The $100,000 Maryland Hunt Cup is the last Saturday in April. And they are not going to cancel it. A chance to see Senior Senator try for his fourth win and break the record. Senior Senator eyes fourth Hunt cup win. Several horses have won it three times, including Hall of Fame horse Jay Trump. Hall of Fame horse Ben Nevis (known as Ben Nevis II in the US) won it twice. Both horses won the Grand National in England.

The Maryland Hunt Cup is the greatest timber race in all of the world! Saturday, April 25, 2020. The 124th Running. The Maryland Hunt Cup dawnleelynn(talk) 23:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Those fences don't look very forgiving! --Bcp67 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I now have foot in mouth disease too. They just canceled it! I bet this has happened to a lot of people. Sorry folks, I really did think they would go on. dawnleelynn(talk) 15:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Senior Senator dies of colic. There won't be a fourth Maryland Hunt Cup in his future after all. I'm so sad about it, but he had a great life with his owner and jockey in Maryland. Three-time Hunt Cup Winner Senior Senator Dies

Reqested move The BMW -> H E Tancred Stakes
Hi. Can some admin follow through with the requested move of the Australian Group 1 event, The BMW -> to the registered name H E Tancred Stakes due to drop of sponsership? I'm not able to do the move myself because there exists a redirect already for the H E Tancred Stakes. A requested move was made seven days ago but its gone into backlog. No one has made an objection with two confirmations as seen in Talk:The_BMW. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Wolver Hollow
Hi, a new draft Draft:Wolver Hollow has been submitted to AfC with difficult to verify sources. It looks good to me, but it would be good if someone with knowledge of the subject area gave it a look. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Notable for being Henry Cecil's first major winner. Decent-looking article, there's a couple of links to dab pages which I'll sort out but I'd say its good enough to move into article space as it stands. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Bcp67, I've accepted &mdash; Cheers, Keep safe KylieTastic (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

More submitted drafts
Hi again, there are two other submitted drafts (both previously rejected) if anyone wants to comment on them, or try to improve them to acceptability if possible Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Edward Donnally
 * Draft:Henry de Bromhead
 * I can not speak for the former as he was based in America but Henry De Bromhead is decidedly eminent within the sport having trained thirty-three Grade One winners at the time of writing. It is not difficult to find mentions of him and his exploits in both trade and national news sources. There is a piece in The Times which gives a brief overview of how his career developed which, alongside his accomplishments, would probably satisfy the notability criteria. However, it does seem a rather convoluted means of demonstrating notability when his accomplishments alone should warrant same. Particularly within a profession which does not typically lend itself to biographical fluff pieces outside of the trade media. Henry De Bromhead very easily satisfies the guidelines set out here so it does concern me that a figure's notability might hinge on something as arbitrary as the whim of a newspaper editor.Kotkijet (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Discord
Hey all, I hope everyone is safe and healthy. My name is HickoryOughtShirt?4 and I'm a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey. I was wondering if there was any interest in starting a WikiProject Sports channel on Discord? There's quite a few of us who are interested in sports, and I think it would be a good idea to help the WikiProject recruit more members. You guys can join us through here.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Inter Dominion Hall of Fame CfD
A Category for Discussion on the Inter Dominion Hall of Fame for its two categories has been added. See Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 15. The authoring editor did not see fit to add a notice here, so I am. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Progeny of race participants
So I have made entries for the Epsom Derbies from 1980 to 2000 and would hope to bring that up to 2019 by the end of the month. Nevertheless this concept is not my property and as enjoyable as the research can be, I would not be upset to find other years (or better yet, other races) receiving the same work. The format and criteria for inclusion of offspring has thus far been largely improvised and discretionary. While not an advocate of prescriptivism, it might be worth considering some form of standardisation. The current format, which has arisen organically, broadly follows these principles;- Insofar as matters of ambiguity are concerned, the greatest areas of contention might pertain to which races qualify as classic races. For example, neither the Irish St. Leger nor the Prix Royal-Oak are exclusively for horses of the "classic" generation while the Premio Regina Elena has deteriorated from a Group One into a Group Three contest. I am not certain how to resolve this and while I might be inclined to favour discretion (Order Of St George was probably classic standard, Royal Diamond probably wasn't), I would rather act on a more general consensus. I imagine that distinguishing between internationally recognised Group Ones and their local counterparts should be relatively straightforward. As for the extent and scope of these sections, I would be in favour of the current format which offers a more broad overview than anything exhaustive. Not least because of the energy required for production and maintenance but also that pertinent elaborations might be better placed within the article of the stallion himself. Kotkijet (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sires are split into four categories (Classic winning, Grade/Group One winning, National Hunt, and Others) with broodmares given an overview when applicable.
 * Priority is given to classic stallions - i.e. a horse who sires one 1000 Guineas winner and ten Grand National winners will be placed among the Classic winning stallions.
 * Up to four or five offspring are mentioned with an example or overview of their accomplishments.
 * For the first two categories, these will typically consist of the most accomplished flat horses with slots available for a sufficiently notable broodmare and/or national hunt horse (a Champion Hurdle winner would likely gain a slot but a winner of a Grade One novice or mares' race would not displace a champion flat horse).
 * For National Hunt stallions, progeny do not necessarily have to be Grade One winners. Incidental pattern class flat horses might warrant a slot.
 * Others will include everything else from stallions of minor or lower pattern class winners to horses exported to stand outside of Britain, Ireland or France.
 * I had a similar issue when working on the Northern Dancer sire line article, because the whole point of calling a race a classic is to identify horses who've proven themselves against the very toughest competition of their generation. So obviously the five English classics are a no brainer, and the only problem with the American classics is figuring out which filly races to include since it's never really been a thing (long story). I went with three French classics (the ... pouliches is never as strong as the ... poulains), 2 in Ireland, 1 in Germany, 3 in Australia and 3 in Japan. But I've not included the Queen's Plate for example since its restricted to Canadian breds. If you want to discuss a more extensive list, that's great. The sire line article has an implicit bias towards races for colts since only they can continue the sire line after all!
 * I agree about having a general overview because maintaining a comprehensive list would be exhausting for major sires like Galileo, especially once you get past the classics.
 * You've inspired me to consider doing the same for the Kentucky Derby articles. Fortunately, I have a great source, Avalyn Hunter's American Classic Pedigrees It's not really known as a future stallion's race, but there are some real notables when you go further back. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Jlvsclrk. I am thrilled that you're interested in doing the same for the KY Derby and would be very excited to see the results. That looks like a very handy source and would definitely be a useful guide. As someone whose accuracy rate is probably quite poor, I would be keen to cross check it with another source to be on the safe side. Are you familiar with Galopp Sieger? It isn't definitive or perfect but I think that would definitely be helpful as it highlights classic winning offspring in its tables and you can even filter them with the "Art" drop-down under "Nur Klassiker". For example, I am looking at Bull Lea and can see that Faultless, Hill Gail and Iron Liege all won Classics while Citation is marked with a little crown icon. I do not know the extent to which the fillies' races are considered inferior to the colts' counterparts but looking at Galopp Sieger, I see that Real Delight is listed as a stakes winner rather than a classic winner. My familiarity with the American pattern is not particularly strong though so your judgement on the matter would be better than my own. Nevertheless, I think that the French and Irish Guineas and Oaks (including the Pouliches) can be safely regarded as quintessential classics. With regards to the Irish St. Leger and the Prix Royal-Oak, perhaps a rule of thumb can be if a horse is a three year old when winning the race, it can be considered classic? With the German and Italian ones, I prefer that the post 1970s renewals held Group One status before labelling them as classics for the purposes of stallion classification, but could otherwise still consider them to be races of interest in the absence of anything more concrete. For the Australian classics, I presume we are using these races? As for Japan, I would be happy to use all five but only those run after 2001 since those prior were restricted to Japanese bred horses only. Up until 2010 they were still restricted to locally trained horses although I would be inclined to forgive this protectionism since it is easier to transfer horses from trainer to trainer than to alter their country of birth. For I know that Central European countries such as Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic have local group races and believe that South American countries also have the same but am unsure as to whether any of them translate to being internationally recognised Group Ones. I agree that more weight should be afforded to sires although I think there is a place for the fillies given that sires can't produce classic winners by themselves! I will probably have to go back and amend quite a few of the additions but I am much more comfortable with a structure.Kotkijet (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Having moved Beat Hollow to the "sires of Classic winners" on the strength of him siring an Irish Leger winner, I have to say I mostly agree with Kotkijet's view, and the Irish Leger & French equivalent aren't really Classics in my view since they were opened up to older horses. For me if a race was classed as Group One in the European pattern at its time, that specific win is OK to stand as a Group One win despite previous or later changes - all Italy's recent G1s have now slipped in status and I have a feeling that at least one is no better than Listed now. I know some countries (Japan ?) have the concept of international G1 and local G1 and for those it has to be international G1 only. I do have a wider issue about the "major wins" sections where we include all wins for races which are now G1s despite status changes - so for example, we would list all Lockinge Stakes wins in that section even though it was run as a G3 or G2 for much of it's history.  Also - I think this addition to the Epsom Derby articles is absolutely excellent and all credit to Kotkijet for getting them going, and good luck to Jlvsclrk with the Kentucky Derby ones. --Bcp67 (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, might it be an idea to consider the Irish St. Leger and the Prix Royal-Oak to be Classics when won by three-year-olds? My apologies but I am not sure I am interpreting your major wins concerns correctly in that they might relate to these pedigree additions. I am happy to include the lesser renewals as items of interest but would not use them as qualifiers when it comes to categorising stallions. My concern with retroactively elevating the status of certain races is that most of the future Group Ones in question would have been inferior contests to those which held Group One status at the time. This will be reflected in the quality of the fields, a single example being Macadamia who was given an official rating of 103 after winning the Falmouth Stakes in 2003. Furthermore, as the conditions of these races will have included penalties not found in Group Ones, a lot of consistency will be lost. As an aside, do you think we should be including Grade One handicaps as qualifiers?Kotkijet (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My "major wins" concern relates to jockey and trainer articles, nothing to do with the pedigree part - but it's the same issue in general, making a race look like it was better than it was at the time. A debate for another time! --Bcp67 (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Aha, then we are in agreement! I have no issues with "named" races being included incidentally because they still have heritage value if nothing else. But they ought not be exploited as a means of artificially inflating the prestige of a horse or horseperson. --Kotkijet (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For America classics, I followed Avalayn Hunter's recommendations for the two filly races, which are the Kentucky Oaks and the Coaching Club American Oaks. The KO is undeniably the strongest race for 3yo fillies while the CCAO has the longest history and has been part of every triple tiara combination you care to look at (that title though has always been new york centric, which is the only reason the kentucky oaks isn't always mentioned). I'll add the pouliches and the two irish races that you mention to my article for consistency. I excluded Italy for the reason you mentioned and thought that the German versions were a bit dodgy once you get past the Deutsches Derby. Japan is tricky but the quality is now so high that I think its appropriate to include even back when. it seems a bit mean to exclude the south american classics altogether when they've produced a few amazing horses like Invasor, but their overall quality is dodgy and influence on the breed is quite minor. Jlvsclrk (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for your input, particularly where the American Classics are concerned. I fear I may have turned what initially seemed like a fun and straightforward endeavour into a rather murky and chaotic affair. Notwithstanding, this is a voluntary labour of love so it is with calmness and joy that I have settled on this criteria for the European races at least. The Italian ones look rather ridiculous but given that breeding is the driving force behind these updates, I felt that bloodstock sales catalogues were probably the most authoritative guide for these purposes;- Classic Races (all to count unless stated otherwise) 1000 Guineas Stakes, 2000 Guineas Stakes, Epsom Oaks, Epsom Derby, St Leger Stakes Irish 1,000 Guineas, Irish 2,000 Guineas, Irish Derby, Irish Oaks, Irish St. Leger (3yo) Poule d'Essai des Pouliches, Poule d'Essai des Poulains, Prix du Jockey Club, Prix de Diane, Prix Royal-Oak (3yo) Deutsches Derby, Preis der Diana (since 2001) Premio Regina Elena (1984-1985), Premio Parioli (1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1990, 1995), Derby Italiano (up to 2008), Oaks d'Italia (1976-2006) Kentucky Derby, Preakness Stakes, Belmont Stakes, Kentucky Oaks, Coaching Club American Oaks While several Canadian Grade Ones are internationally recognised, unfortunately none of the triple crown races counted amongst them. Randwick Guineas, Rosehill Guineas, Australian Derby Oka Sho, Satsuki Shō, Yushun Himba, Tokyo Yūshun, Kikuka-shō (all since 2001)
 * UK
 * Ireland
 * France
 * Germany
 * Italy
 * North America
 * Australia
 * Japan

Group Ones Internationally recognised, non-handicap, Grade Ones can be used from all aforementioned nations as well as Canada. South American and South African Grade/Group Ones can be used as notes of interest but not as qualifiers.Kotkijet (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a terrific list and I've updated the Northern Dancer sire line accordingly. I'd just note that in the US, Grade I handicaps can be very, very prestigious, especially in the past, so I wouldn't rule out horses that had won say the Metropolitan Handicap. And nowadays there's not much difference in weights assigned for a "handicap" versus a race run under allowance conditions like the Woodward. Jlvsclrk (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you and I think that's a fair point regarding Grade I handicaps. Which other handicaps should be afforded respect along with the Metropolitan? On that note, it might be worth putting the Melbourne Cup and Caulfield Cup in the same bracket (on the off chance that those are the only races taken by a Group One sire in the opposite hemisphere!) --Kotkijet (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The most prestigious American handicaps right now would be the Metropolitan (aka Met Mile), Cigar Mile, Clark, Manhattan, Ogden Phipps and Santa Anita. In fact, if you look at the graded stakes race article's list of G1 fixtures, the only handicaps that don't have a high reputation are some of the ones for fillies/mares or on turf. Having said all that, the trend in the US is away from handicaps because trainers of the best horses now just won't run if they get too high a weight, so that drives down field quality. OTOH, handicaps tend to attract larger fields so that drives up the competitive level. It's a balancing act and many long time fixtures like the Whitney have shifted from handicap to allowance conditions and back again. In the states, if its a G1, that means the top five finishers in the last few years have met the quality threshold for a Grade I: if the quality drops, the race gets downgraded, which happened recently with the Stephen Foster. So when looking at individual horses, you look at the grade in the year they ran.
 * Australia is somewhat different because they're more serious about handicapping horses so you do see some horses who win because of the weights instead of raw ability. But the race is so darned prestigious that I'd definitely include it. Not as sure about the Caulfield Cup, but with a purse that big it SHOULD be attracting top notch fields. Jlvsclrk (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Stayer article and redirect discussion
Hello. There's currently a redirect discussion I started at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3 which relates to the horse racing article currently located at Stayer (horse). It has been noted that Stayer (horse) is quite short, so I wonder if someone more knowledgeable could expand that article? (or perhaps you agree with the suggestion in the move discussion that it should be merged into a glossary article? Anyway, any input would be appreciated) Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi A7V2. That is a very short article which is decidedly lacking in context. If there is to be such an article, it should detail notable races and horses, differentiate between a stayer in North America and the rest of the world (1½ miles is considered middle distance in Europe) and perhaps include some theories on dosage/breeding. I am working on a non-wiki project at the moment and would not have the time, nor particularly the inclination, to expand it myself. As such, I would favour merging it into a glossary article. All best wishes, Kotkijet (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I added stayer to the North American glossary since it doesn't hurt to have it there even if we do decide to keep the separate article. I don't know if there's a European glossary. I think it would be interesting to cover the topic of stamina and the decline of distance racing in North America – just look at the change in distance for the Jockey Club Gold Cup for example since the 60s when it was two miles. But I don't have time for the research, though the article I used as a source in the glossary would be a good starting point. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like the redirect discussion has stagnated anyway, so probably the article will remain as it is for now (possibly moved to Stayer, but not merged into a glossary). Of course there's no rush (after all there's no WP:DEADLINE) in improving the article though. I really only brought Stayer (horse) to this Wikiproject's attention since it certainly to me looks like something which could definitely be a sizable article and of course this seems the most likely place someone interested and able to improve it would be! Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

New List article - All Graded US and Canada events
To this Project group. I have created a new article - List of American and Canadian Graded races which is an equivalent to the lists that exist for the British, Australia and South American Group races. This list is for the 2019 season as per the references used. There are external articles that exists for the current season (2020) but I left updating this new article after the initial article was created and for anyone who is interested. Also since the season is affected by Covid-19 the list may be difficult to track. A partial list of Grade 1 currently exists in the Graded stakes race article. Now there is a bit of a mismatch since this article is complete and maybe the section in the Graded article point with a wikilink to this new list. All this is debatable and I'll let the gallery have their say.

To create this list I first made sure that every event in that list had an article. Hence, there were about ~27 new articles created for missing Grade 2 and 3 events around the country. A fair amount of effort went into creating these articles and all of them have enough references that should keep them from being tagged as unverifiable. In fact I tried to have a reference for each winner that was included in the winners section. This is not the case in many of the existing articles. Hope the list helps as a reference because I use the other racing list and they are very helpful. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's great! It's a bit harder to maintain the list for North America because the grading yo-yo's each year, and names change like nobody's business. But it's wonderful to see them all together and thanks for adding those articles for the lower grades. I'd noticed that several racetracks like Kentucky Downs were virtually ignored.
 * As for references for each winner, yes, we have been a bit slack but the source for everything since 1976 is Equibase so it gets a bit repetitive.Jlvsclrk (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks excellent. I like having all the races in a single list - compare to List of British flat horse races for example where we split the races by status, including a fair number of ungraded races. What does anything think of moving to a single list format for the European countries?  Makes it easier too when a status changes. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I leave Europe in your very capable hands, Bcp67. For North America, since we have 450 graded stakes races and the grading committee typically changes about 40 (!) grades a year and the calendar for each racetrack changes on the fly, it's going to be fun to keep the list up to date. Having said that, its definitely worth that investment in time. I've been working my way down the list and have had to make changes in at least half the articles I've come across. I haven't been checking in on the G2/G3 races often and some of them haven't been updated in years. Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, thanks for your comments. Jlvsclrk has given me some suggestions and I will implement them shortly. This includes somethings which have become standard for US/Canada articles. The reason I have started this way is that the sorting mechanisms of wikitable make it easier work in such a way. Grades will shown in Roman numerals. Date output formatting needs to be looked in as well. Currently its easy to sort but the display is not user friendly. I'll look into my software generation within the next couple of days to get the list in such a format. And yes - some of the event articles are way out of date. On my second pass I will try to clean them up and add references as well but I'm glad that you see this article can help in achieving the same goals we have here in WP. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Pat Day needs attention from a knowledgeable editor
There has been quite a bit of dispute at Talk:Pat Day alleging biased and unsupported content at Pat Day. I know nothing about horse racing, but if someone here is interested, it appears to need some sorting out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * On it. Jlvsclrk (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Important (lengthy) information about horse race table setup
WP:DATELIST = Manual of Style/Lists

There are at least four Thoroughbred horse races where an embedded table setup has been reversed by a Wikipedia editor. The edit summary reasoning stated: ‎ →‎Winners: reverse order so chrono, remove

The WP:DATELIST = Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists is not a policy, it is a guideline that allows exceptions and this is an exception that is important for Wikipedia to act in concert with the U.S. industry. To do that, we have hundreds of existing U. S. horse race articles with an embedded table beginning with the year for the latest race. Racetracks throughout the U.S. that provide a list of annual race winners online start with the most recent year first as per the sample list below. Plus, the very important Equibase Co LLC database starts with the most recent year as does Pedigree Query, a massive database edited by volunteers which automatically places any individual race result by most recent year when created. 
 * Response

Updating horse race article tables: For Wikipedia editors, or viewers, having the first line of the race table start with the most recent year means the viewer instantly knows if it's up to date. If it is the last year first, a great many will not take the time to check to see if it's up to date or not, even if they understand the table is sortable.

In Wikipedia's horse race articles there is often a historical section. These always begin with the first notable event relevant to the race like the Melbourne Cup. In cases where sub-headers are used, each begins with the first notable information relevant to the race such as in the Golden Rod Stakes (Sheepshead Bay).
 * Timeline of events


 * Sample of U.S. racetracks reporting tables

NYRA - the 3 tracks all owned by the State of New York:
 * Saratoga Race Course NYRA -
 * Aqueduct Race Track NYRA -
 * Belmont Park NYRA -
 * Pimlico Race Course -
 * Churchill Downs -
 * Arlington Park -
 * Santa Anita Park -
 * Gulfstream Park -
 * Del Mar Fairgrounds - owned by the State of California -
 * Kentucky Downs -
 * Monmouth Park - owned by the State of New Jersey -
 * Turf Paradise -
 * Oaklawn Park -
 * Turfway Park -

Note that Parx Racing publishes their list with the oldest race first. For certain the defunct Calder Racecourse did too and I think Ellis Park Race Course might.

Even when a race such as the Breeders' Cup series is not in table form but instead each year is an individual page, the dropdown starts at the most recent year. In pre-digital times when the Daily Racing Form (DRF) and other U.S. horse racing publications were printed on paper, a table of race results did begin with the earliest year. However, for readers of printed matter it was only a glance to find the latest or any other year's result on such a list and most of those lists were fairly short. And, in those days typesetting costs meant the order didn't change. 

All Wikipedia horse race articles get their highest number of views on race day. Today users want quick or "instant gratification" when accessing information online. The advent of the digital era saw racetrack operators learn very quickly that people searching their websites for information were there in volume to find that day's race results and increasingly so wanted the latest info to appear first. This is demonstrated through the link above to a Santa Anita Park page which has one page that provides links to annual media guides. The Stronach Group does the same thing for their Pimlico Race Course.

Every day that there is a horse race going on in the United States there is an online story with race details. Viewers coming to Wikipedia have the unique option of usually being able to click on the name of a horse, jockey, trainer or owner to obtain biographical info. Instantly seeing that latest result on the table's first line when they open the article is essential. Hence, there will be a considerable spike in page views on race day and often the day after. This viewing habit can be seen in the following Wikipedia examples:


 * Wikipedia horse race page views:

USA: 2019 Kentucky Derby

2019 Kentucky Derby winning jockey Flavien Prat

2019 Kentucky Derby winning trainer Bill Mott ]

The number of page views increases dramatically on race day even for a Grade 3 race such as the Withers Stakes run on Feb. 2, 2019. Note that the Wiki page did not include the 2019 results and wasn't updated until September 24. And, even an ungraded stakes such as the Glens Falls Stakes with no table still gets a substantial increase in views on race day.

England: 2019 Epsom Derby

Woodbine Racetrack in Canada published it's last annual list of races in 2018 which had their horse races beginning with the first year run. Some South Africa racetracks found online also listed their horse races beginning with the first year run as do some European venues. Other major racetracks or sports media outlets around the world begin with the most recent race:
 * Worldwide reporting


 * Racing Post uses most recent date for their tables. London's preeminent race reporter is a source used by Wikipedia editors in all table references for the UK, Ireland and France as seen by these examples: Dahlia Stakes King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes Irish Derby Prix Jacques Le Marois Grand Prix de Paris


 * Australia horse racing records by most recent year:


 * Racing and Sports Japanese races by most recent year:


 * Hong Kong Jockey Club by most recent year:

Similar to the recording of a horse race, and for the same reasoning, the Wikipedia Eclipse Award, Cartier Racing Award and earlier National Champion awards all have a table(s) that begins with the most recent year. Externally, the U.S. awards list can be seen in this DRF website and this Blood-Horse magazine online Champions chart.The Bloodhorse.com Champion's history charts.
 * Eclipse Award tables

A winners' table starting with the latest year's result is not exclusive to Thoroughbred racing.

From the following two lists of sports clubs and the media it appears most every type of sports and media organizations could soon be publishing their online results history beginning with the most recent year.

The official NBA website records begin with the most recent year:

The official National Hockey League website records begin with the most recent year:

The official NFL Pro Football Hall of Fame website records for Champions begins with the most recent year:

The official Australian Open tennis website records begin with the most recent year:

The official Stade Roland Garros French Open tennis website records begin with the most recent year:

The official The Championships, Wimbledon tennis website records opens with the most recent:

The official USTA Men's Singles Champions 1881 - 2019 begins with the most recent year:

The official World Lacrosse - international federation for men’s and women’s lacrosse:

The official Men's Softball World Championship winners begins with the most recent year:

MEDIA: ESPN list of World Series winners begins with the most recent year:

NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship (Turner Broadcasting et al) winners begins with the most recent year:

Sporting News - Indianapolis 500 winners begin with the most recent year:

USA Today - Year-by-year Indianapolis 500 winners since 1911 begins with the most recent year:

Stretchrunner (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Your issue? (I don’t mean that in a snarky way, it’s a question). I formatted everything up there so it’s clear that it’s all your post, my apologies in advance for any misformatting. Is this a dispute on a talkpage?  If so, can you link? You are making a case for something, but I’m not sure what. Is it to decide whether to list events in charts with the most recent first? That’s simple, we just discuss and decide.  I personally favor most recent first, as I think you do, but the real question is how many hundred articles are affected and who is going to do it. If you want to, I personally have no issue with that, but before one dives in and changes hundreds of articles, we probably do need consensus. Also, what the edit summary above suggests to me isn’t that the concern was chrono or reverse chrono, it was that the formatting was messed up.  Important not to mess up formatting!  Montanabw (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the issue was raised by a different editor, who reversed the order of the tables for three races, citing WP:datelist. I believe stretchrunner was documenting why we should stick with what we've got, and that its far from unprecedented to do so. I like most recent first because that's usually what I'm most interested in as a user, and its easy for me as an editor to see if its up to date, and to make the edits if it's not. All North American stakes articles that I've seen (and I've seen a lot as part of the cleanup associated with our new list of graded stakes) are set up newest first so there's no work required to maintain this standard, and an incredible amount if we did change it. It is a bit odd though if you're coming from European articles that seem to follow an oldest first standard. Jlvsclrk (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think the European articles may be the older ones on WP and were created sort of en masse, perhaps working off of a single, older source.  Maybe we should ping the European editors,(...?) as it seems best to be consistent unless there’s a logical reason not to be.  And from many assorted wikiwars over the years, there’s always room for exceptions to any rule. Plus,  best to know if there’s a logical reason.  Montanabw (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Looking at the other wikipedia lists of sports champions oldest at the top seems much the most common. In fact it seems to be the most common for any chronological list. There are exceptions of course, and I wouldn't go rearranging lists just for the heck of it, although I probably have done for consistency: it makes sense for the lists in a particular field to have the same format. The winners of Australian and American races are nearly always newest first and if people are generally happy with that I'm fine with that as well. As far as I know all the European and Japanese lists are oldest first and I would be strongly inclined to keep them that way. Pinging ).  Tigerboy1966   16:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tigerboy1966. I'm also happy to keep the lists in different orders to fit with local custom and go against the guideline in WP:DATELIST. All my books with records of European races are oldest first and that's certainly conventional here for any list of sports winners, but if the custom in North America and Australia is to have the newest races listed at the top, I wouldn't want to change either set just to be consistent. Keep things as they are. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

So, am I accurately stating the consensus of the project that we are approaching these racing date lists in a way analogous to spelling in WP:ENGVAR, in that we follow the style used by the nation (or whatever relevant entity) in question? In other words, lists of North American and Australian races may be recent first, while we should keep the lists of European and Japanese (and presumably the rest of Asia) races oldest first? That said, I believe the individual horse articles have charts that are all chronological, first race to last. Montanabw (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a consensus. I might not feel as passionately about it if I didn't know how much work was involved! Why does America have so darned many stakes races? I've been updating for two weeks now and have gone through about 60 articles - more than 300 left though. Even when the table gets updated, people aren't updating the chit chat at the top to reflect recent history. And I really had to roll my eyes about somebody who created a "Top Three Finishers" article for some random GII/III races. We should probably really prune back on those and just have Top three finishers for the Classics / Breeders Cup and a few major Grade Is like the Met Mile.


 * As for the tables of races in individual horse articles, I think oldest first makes sense there because it shows the development of the horse over its career, which feels like a better historical perspective. Most of the ones I've seen are set up that way. Zenyatta is the exception, with her last race shown first, and it throws me every time I look at it. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments needed - delete Category
Somebody created this their first and only article before being blocked Category:Alydar offspring with its only entry Alysheba. Should it be deleted? Stretchrunner (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, in my view. No reason to have categories for every possible sire's offspring, and no reason to have a category for Alydar's either. --Bcp67 (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I started a deletion discussion. It can be found here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Need suggestions from WikiProject Horse racing members
Because it is very important in a horse's bio, I'd like to see a new Category for T'bred Horses that reflects a properly referenced fact in the bio that during it's racing career the horse established a New Track Record(s). Would like input as well as suggestions for a Category name to be used.Stretchrunner (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do like that idea. It's such an important part in America at least, less so I imagine in Europe because track conditions are so variable. I can't think of anything less ungainly than "Thoroughbred track record setter" though. Suggest if we do adopt it as a category, we make sure it's in the lead. I know it's there for Secretariat, Man o' War, Northern Dancer, Dr. Fager, Spectacular Bid, Easy Goer and Arrogate - who are the horses who jump to my mind for the category. (ETA my signature: Jlvsclrk (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC))
 * This is definitely something which is a big difference between the European & American approaches! We've never been too bothered about record times here, it gets noted in reports, as when Kameko won the 2000 Guineas at the weekend in record time, but it won't be any sort of defining factor and I wouldn't look to put such a category on any European article. As mentioned above the variety of courses is the main thing and also I suppose the style of racing predominate in Europe, where we race with a slower pace and most of the action takes place late in the race. No personal objection to the creation of the category though. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to a new category, but I feel rather strongly that we don’t necessarily need to clutter the lead to add “set track record” to of thousands of articles. That said, it should be referenced somewhere in the text. Also, there are race records, track records and national/world records. Do we have categories for the latter? (And in the case of horses like Secretariat, who set many records, it gets complicated) Also, keep in mind that Quarter horses and Harness horses also set track records, so I personally think a new category should consider other racing breeds. Pinging, who knows QH racing and may have insights on this. Might I recommend Category:Horse racing track record holders?
 * My intention was for one simple category (holder no "s") posted only to a horse bio only and regardless of the number of track records set because that would be covered in the text. There is no need to change existing articles but I think I already do but if not, in future I will certainly mention track record in the opening along with HoF induction or TC winner and the like. In N/A a track record, even if broken a short time later, is a big deal. A World Record doesn't mean all that much. Good recommendation, thanks. Would like more suggestions for the Category name and see where that takes us. Stretchrunner (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Simple is good. Names are whatever the category gurus prefer, maybe ask them.  As for the lead, WP:LEDE covers what goes in the lead, which is a summary of the overall article.  Sometimes records are very relevant in the lede, sometimes not, kind of depends on what else the horse is noted for. I don’t think it’s a real big issue either way, so have fun with it.   Montanabw (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Who the heck are the "category gurus" ? I'll send them a message ASAP because I got nothing in my fried brain. Thanks. Stretchrunner (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Heh, I shouldn’t have used shorthand. I mean the people who do tons of work on categories, I’ll ping a couple, and if they don’t respond here, maybe you can ask them for ideas directly., ?
 * We have the category name as suggested above and another by Pigsonthewing. Please come up with a new one or sign your name name below the one you prefer. I'll wait a week before creating this new category. Stretchrunner (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Category:Horse racing track record holders
 * Category:Horse racing track record setters
 * Prefer setters to holders: if a horse was notable for setting a track record, they don't become less notable when that record is broken. For example, Man o' War's last existing track record was broken last year, but he's still notable as a record setter in his own era. Ditto Dan Patch on the harness racing side. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely “setters”. Holders change from time to time, making updates a huge maintenance nightmare. Montanabw (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Purse distribution
I added a section on the article purse distribution about bonuses and added money, hoping to illustrate the difference between the stated purse and the total amounts paid out. Can someone give it a lookover to see if it makes sense? Also, I'd appreciate some input on whether this is relevant in Europe. I don't see an explanation on racingpost about how the purse is distributed equivalent to the one that goes on the top of each chart on Equibase. Jlvsclrk (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The article has a lot of relevant info but there needs sections introduced. The intro needs short and clear and there seem to be a historical and geographical needs for separation. Good stuff - need European input in this article. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * We need to discuss why total purses are not used in articles. The Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association which governs grading of events in the US collates their listing with total purses. This is the reference that is used in the List of American and Canadian Graded races article. I have reverted those purse amounts as per the reference. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I do a lot of race article updates to either add a complete table or expand an existing one. It is a massive and costly amount of work. Total purses for many decades of races aren't easily found in North American racing. The NYRA, all Stronach co's, Woodbine, Churchill Downs and almost all tracks that publish charts with historic annual race results show only the winner's share. These major tracks represent 90% of everything. Hollywood Park and Churchill Downs showed both, but they aren't publishing those detailed historical charts any more. The reason the tracks all show Win$ in historical charts is because that is what their online readers want. The total purse$ and or added$, doesn't matter to them. Stretchrunner (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We should use the purse wherever possible because that's what is almost universally referred to - I can think of very few newspaper articles for example that refer to the winner's share. It's the $6 million Breeders' Cup Classic, not what's paid out to the winner. As for sources, everything from 1976 onwards just needs a quick look at the Equibase database (which of course shows the purse). But we do face the difficulty of sources pre-Equibase. I'd rather leave out the info than publish just the winner's share, but that's perhaps just me. Something may be better than nothing. Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem at all. Today the total purse is easily accessible via online charts. The articles are about the event not just winner. As far as what tracks show - It depends on the Track, but from what I have found is that both the Churchill Downs media information and the last Hollywood Park Media in 2012 show in larger font the Total Purse and smaller font the winners share. Historical Charts even those that I have referenced from 1890s have the total purse. Most newspapers who reported race results from 1950s to late 1980s had the Total Purse. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, it won't generally be a problem and relatively few articles show the purse in the table anyways. I was surprised though when I was trying to update an article (San Carlos Stakes) to change it to purse but could only find the winner's share in the media guide. Maybe it's just Santa Anita? But that's a pretty rare exception. Jlvsclrk (talk)
 * Also the media guides that are provided are should not be the only source for referencing the article. In the pre 1976 era the newspapers that were covering racing were very thorough and should be expected since Racing was very much a popular sport. The LA Times and San Francisco Examiner and even the small town papers covered the sport and all concerns extensively in California. The Louisville Courier-Journal was also very accurate since horse racing is major industry and reporting all events including purse and distributions even to the point of having charts bought from the Daily Racing Form and Triangle Productions who in the 20th century were keeping track of the particulars of an event - And they were very accurate. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

One comment. When we are talking races that get an individual article for each year, like the 2019 Kentucky Derby, to include purse distribution makes sense. However, I hope we aren't talking about articles about races where we just update a list of winners or win-place-show, such as the San Carlos Stakes because this will create a perpetual nightmare of constantly updating every article every year. To say the total purse is X, is fine, but if we get into the weeds, we risk turning these articles into Equibase, which is kind of beyond the scope. Maybe just a citation in the list to the charts is all that's needed. Montanabw (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Each winner should have a reference. That gives credence to the entry in the list. A blanket reference for 110+ winners in an event with everything copied from a page in a media guide is bogus IMO. Event articles do not provide place or show information, nor do they provide odds or things which may be of interest to the reader. However a reference should be provided. The idea here is that many of these articles have been neglected and improvement is necessary. Every author has their own ideas as to how to do these articles. They have been around for a while and have been inconsistent in terms of form and content. A general improvement has been on going since the list to identify all out US/Canadian Graded races. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Editor's should do individual references for each race? I think that is physically daunting and nearly impossible plus I have to believe that such a requirement might well bring efforts by Wikipedia editors on tables to a complete halt. I also don't understand the statement that a "blanket reference for 110+ winners in an event with everything copied from a page in a media guide is bogus." The largest source for "blanket" info by far is the State of New York and even Del Mar is the State of California. I'm not sure how we could declare them bogus? Nonetheless, as User:Brudder Andrusha wants to do a 100+ year old race with individual references it is worth his sincere effort. I will post my last table shortly then stop doing tables and wait to see what he has done and how long it took him to gather that info. Stretchrunner (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * you will be waiting a long time to see all the graded events with a reference for each winner. My goal is not to do it one season but in several. This is a pleasure to update the events to something worthy of referencing. Luckily I'm retired now and I can update at my own leisure. But even NYRA can't update their event pages properly. They did indicate that the 1955 Vagrancy Handicap was run in Divisions but clearly they forgot who won the first division. Nice that we have other sources of reference. Cheers! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't be too hard on the NYRA. To me, they seem always to be very conscientious. I have their historical Chart through 2010 that has both 1955 divisions properly recorded. They got things right for many years until they hired someone new several years back for online management to update and change to "lite" tables etc. to reduce costs. That person screwed up for nearly two years the dollar amounts and other input. Needless to say, they no longer work there but for the NYRA, just finding all the crap errors is no easy task. Stretchrunner (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Input needed - delete Category
This apparently solitary category is inconsistent with everything editors have done in horse racing articles at Wikipedia. It is unwarranted and I think should be deleted. Please comment. Stretchrunner (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Category:Racehorses trained by Fred Rimell


 * I started a CFD. Feel free to join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Pedigree Charts
I think it would be great if every Project member would pitch in to ensure that all horses in the following articles each have a Pedigree Chart: Stretchrunner (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Leading sire in Australia
 * Leading sire in France
 * Leading sire in Germany
 * Leading sire in Great Britain & Ireland
 * Leading sire in Japan
 * Leading sire in North America
 * Leading broodmare sire in Great Britain & Ireland
 * Leading broodmare sire in North America
 * I'll start looking at the North American lists. What source do you use for the older sires? Equineline isn't always complete going back to the 19th century. Jlvsclrk (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) start with the ASB issues that are online - you will find a lot from at least 1867 onward with the most referred to being the 1889 & 1898  issues; 2) DRF archives  - sometimes in articles but usually you will need them as a race winner or in "past performances" - be careful with the mare if she has a common horse name; 3) Pedigree Query (normally not from this type of site but for the actual pedigree the operator does verify it); 4) more work necessary but there are many old books online you can download as a PDF with lots of pedigrees spread throughout. Stretchrunner (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Allbreed and Pedigree query cannot be used as citations on wiki, but like Find a Grave for people (unacceptable as a cite for the same reason... anyone can edit) maybe we can at least link to those databases in the external links section. Montanabw (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone back 50 years now in the North American sire lists and am surprised at how many of them were missing pedigrees (plus poor Buckaroo didn't have an article at all). I guess we should console ourselves with the greater consistency we've achieved in what needs to go in these articles. As montanbw has remarked before, a lot of the older articles could use an upgrade, especially for Hall of Famers like Round Table. I've added that articles and several others to my to-do list, as time permits. Just need to finish upgrading Zenyatta, then Tiz the Law, then... Jlvsclrk (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Now working on Hail to Reason, whose article uses a capital "t" on the "to" in the title, and then inconsistently uses upper and lower case t throughout the text. The correct spelling is a redirect to the incorrect spelling. Can anyone help get that fixed. Silly things like that bug me! Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Australian Racing
Hi all. My main focus is on Australian Racing. Not sure if any one has noticed but in the past all references to previous major winners in Australia was done through the website ‘breednet.com.au’. Well, they have since removed all these results from their webpage, click on any link to any major winner In Australia now and what appears is nothing or a page saying “this has been moved”. It looks bad. I've been thinking due to this it would be an ideal time to update Australian results of major races more in line with European and US racing Results which includes the jockey as well as trainer with a reference also. Does anyone object to Australian racing changing to this style also... I know it would be a big tast to change over to this style but I am willing to get stuck into it, however wanted to hear other users opinions and not tread on any toes. Look forward to your feedback. Sunline02 (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * First off, see if there are archived links to the old pages... there’s a bot you can have run that sends them all through the Wayback Machine, though I haven’t used it. Beyond that, I think that working on the Australia/New Zealand articles to create consistency with the others is a great idea.   has created more horse racing articles than anyone else, I think so he’s a great resource for you for standardized structure.   is a pro at the quality article improvement stuff, we worked together on getting Secretariat and American Pharoah to featured article status. But one bit of advice... don’t go anywhere near Phar Lap for awhile, the “was he an Australian horse or a New Zealand horse” question tends to break the internet in wasted bandwidth every time anyone messes with it! (LOL). I say go for it!   Montanabw (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The breednet situation might not be so bad. I had a quick look at the Mackinnon Stakes and it looks as though they have merged all the results since 1983 onto a single page . You would only need one ref for the whole table. When adding more detailed tables I would just start with winners since 2000 and leave the rest as a "Past winners" section. I do find the constantly changing names of Australian races confusing, although it's not as bad as Germany in this regard.  Tigerboy1966  08:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I feared one day this would happen with breednet.com. The results were in an equivalent form with equibase (US/Canada) and to some degree with Racing Post. Maybe the pages have been moved to another URL within their site? Also Racing Australia was a good reference but I noticed that their pages would change as well. I have contacted breednet and will inform all about this since I spent good amount of time getting this references for all the OZ Group races. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Brudder. I will leave it be. It seems some of the breednet.com references are there, some are not. Sunline02 (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion merits further thoughts and support. I did see the new way Breednet is displaying their stakes results as by the link provided by . If we could come to some consensus on the template that could be used so that we don't go stepping on each others work then I would like to help by creating some software that would convert the current references so they would all point to new one that breednet is using. I do think the additional information about the event and winners in the table is quite helpful as per the current modifications that I am pursuing with US events. Since you have been continuing tirelessly to keep the Australian racing pages up to date I will let you lead in this area. Deadlink references are just not helpful in terms of WP:V and raising this issue here is very valid.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Sire line trees
Hi all, I just noticed that someone added Sire line trees to a bunch of articles, mostly last November. I find them excessively long, tracing various horses (not only Thoroughbreds but some others as well) to the dawn of time. They are not sourced fully (and thus of dubious accuracy) and, frankly, we aren't pedigreequery.com. One example is here. I reverted three or four, but then figured out the editor who had put them all in, realized it's been someone who has been around for a while, and so I figured I'd better take it here before I toss the rest of them. Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that with the Byerley Turk too. I think there's some benefit with foundation sires (plus Lexington for America) to show how their influence waxed and waned over time. So with the Byerley Turk, I tried to show that by highlighting the main stallions in the tree, rather than showing every darn racehorse. The ultimate source is probably tbheritage or bloodlines.
 * Then again, I am the person who started the Northern Dancer sire line article, and periodically thinks of doing the same for Mr. P. I do understand the temptation to show the detail! With Northern Dancer, I compromised by only showing horses that had won one of the major races shown, and who were thus notable in their own right. Jlvsclrk (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s not their famous descendants, it’s the thing of tracing their ancestors back to the dawn of time. You weren’t the person doing the trees... maybe instead of the diff, look at the actual pre-revert version. Looks dreadful. For descendants, where they get out of hand, we can create a stand-alone list and link to it.    Montanabw (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Renaming discussion
Renaming discussion that may be of interest to project members here Montanabw (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Honor A.P.
Dear horse-racing experts: This draft has been waiting a long time at WP:AFC for a review. Can someone take a look and see if this is a notable horse? Thanks.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Won the G1 Santa Anita Derby, second choice in the Kentucky Derby, yes, notable. Jlvsclrk (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

bloodstock.racingpost.com
It appears that the horse profiles that used to be at have been moved to. Mostly the old address forwards to the new one, but not always - sometimes clicking on the old URL just leads to a blank page. But even in those cases, inserting the horse id into the new address format returns the right page, at least in the few random examples I've tried. It rather looks like there needs to be a mass conversion of the citation URLs to the new format; and the associated  parameter also should be updated to something like. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yipes! We've probably got thousands of these. Anyone know how to get a bot to do this? Pinging  for advice, he's the only scripts expert I know well enough to ask.   Montanabw (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a request at WP:BOTREQ. (I should add that I've no inside knowledge of this shift of addresses, it's just something I discovered from trying to chase down a few citations. It would be great if there's anyone who can definitely confirm that this reorganisation has taken place in the way it appears.) Colonies Chris (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * a search for "Bloodstock.racingpost.com" in articles shows 1,054 results. You could try changing a few of these manually to check that the new url format works reliably. If it does, then either a lot of clicking with AWB, or a bot request is the solution for you. I often turn to my pal who runs User:Pi bot for one-off jobs like this, and he might be able to help you out. --RexxS (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can have a look soon, but you may want to find someone that's better at regex than me! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can have a look soon, but you may want to find someone that's better at regex than me! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be both more complicated and simpler than I originally thought. Simpler in that it looks like the distinction between sires and dams in the URLs is gone - so for example, what used to be at  is now found at   (albeit that tab is paywalled), and you can get to the correct page without having to insert the horse name into the url (the website's software does that automatically). But you can't get to a specific tab without supplying the name (using the example above,  will get you to the horse's page, but going straight to a different tab without the name  does not work. Seemingly the horse name has to be converted to lowercase and any spaces replaced by hyphens (e.g.  . And special characters such as ' and. have to be removed e.g.  and  Colonies Chris (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at the different variations there are on the  URLs, and trying out a few regexes; based on what I've discovered, I'd like to propose a way forward. There are already many templates whose job is to build a URL for a reference database, such as ProQuest or PMID. They are invoked by replacing the   parameter of cite web by , for example. They  encapsulate the URL-building in one place; this means that any future reorganisation of the Racing Post database would only require a change to the template rather than to hundreds of articles. Since it will be be necessary to scan and modify all the articles now, it would be good to take this opportunity to futureproof them.
 * In this specific case, new template  would need one to three parameters. At a minimum, and in most cases, just , extracted from the current URL. For those URLs that specify a tab, such as the Thimblerigger example above, the horse name and the tab identifier would also be needed. I can build the template; it would be pretty straightforward. Converting all the current URLs that just have the horse-id from   or   to   could be easily done by a bot, I think, or I can share my regexes and the workload can be spread across any editors who'd like to take it on via AWB (there are some complications at the end of some of the existing URLs that need to be handled, but regexes can easily deal with that). The more complex cases - the ones that specify a tab and therefore also need a horse name - would have to be handled manually, but I think the numbers are quite small, so that's manageable. The template would handle the conversion of the horse name as described above (lowercasing, etc.), so it would just need to be passed the horse name in its everyday format. How does this sound? Colonies Chris (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've created a basic version of the Racing Post horse template which currently accepts only a single parameter (horse id). The usage and results can be seen in one article, Barton (horse) (reference no.3). It was also necessary to change cite web to cite journal, to remove the  parameter, which is not accepted for this sort of database reference, and the   parameter is no longer needed as the generated reference includes that link. Also I've removed the   parameter, which is no longer correct. All these changes can easily be performed with regexes in AWB, or by a bot. Any observations? Colonies Chris (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve got no clue how to make this go, but if folks like bless it for the UK horses and it works, maybe we could do the same thing on equibase or equineline....?
 * Yes, a quick look at some Equineline and Equibase links suggests that they could be approached the same way. It'd be very helpful to have input from someone with specific knowledge on this subject - I'm just a generalist gnome and techie. (In particular, the Equineline links have a lot of parameters which don't seem to be necessary e.g. American Pharoah has  - but experiment shows that just the horse id -   leads to the same webpage). Colonies Chris (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked for input at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1; the feeling there is that the best approach is a bit more radical but ultimately simpler and more flexible than my suggestion above. The idea is to create a wrapper template around cite web. I have done this - it can be found at cite Racing Post horse profile (the name's a bit lengthy - shorter name suggestions would be welcome). It can then be invoked with the same parameters as the existing citations, plus a new horse-id required parameter e.g. . As before, an example of this method can be seen in Barton (horse). A similar approach could be taken for Equiline and Equibase citations. They've also suggested that a request at WP:URLREQ would be the best way to actually get the change made, so if there are no objections, I'll make a suitable request there. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

A summary of what's been done. Thanks largely to the bot operated by User:GreenC, all the old-format Racing Post citation links have either been converted to the new format, or those that had no conversion available have had an archive link added to them; some links that had been marked dead and archived were recovered using the new URL format; a small number have been flagged as dead links. Detailed notes are at Link_rot/URL_change_requests. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Horse naming
On a related question - what are the rules for naming horses? There's nothing in Wikipedia that I can find; there are many online articles on the subject, but they're mostly pretty jokey, not definitive statements. What characters are allowed? Some sources say only letters, numbers, spaces and apostrophes, but it's not hard to find names that use hyphens or full stops (see above). Does it vary by country? There are a few French horse names that use an accent (e.g. Épinard, Brantôme), but most don't, even when one would normally be present (e.g. Champs Elysees, Pas de Reponse). Colonies Chris (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good question! In Britain under the admin of the BHA there is a limit of 18 characters in total and you can't reuse a protected name, mostly well known horses. Their rules are here  and their horse naming code is here . You can't use a "name made up entirely of initials, or ones that include figures, hyphens, full-stops, commas, signs, exclamation marks, inverted commas, forward or backward slash, colon and semi-colon".  So the (lucky!) 1956 Grand National winner E.S.B. wouldn't be allowed today and owners get round this by using names like DeeExBee. Not sure about accents - nothing specific in the BHA rules about those.--Bcp67 (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. It makes an interesting read. They ban 'figures' entirely (rule 5), which makes rule 3 superfluous, if by 'figures' they mean digits. Full stops are out. Apostrophes aren't mentioned, so they are presumably acceptable. And though they do ban exclamation marks, they don't appear to have any issue with question marks (though I haven't seen any names using one). I wonder if anyone has tried to include parentheses/brackets in a name, since they're not explicity disallowed? And they don't have anything to say about lower or uppercase or spacing, though I don't suppose they'd allow anyone to register "red rum" or "anthonyvandyck", for example. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Apostrophes are definitely OK, A'Ali a decent performer in sprint races this year as an example. I've never seen a horse name all in lowercase, but theoretically it could happen. I think the catch-all is that the BHA reserve the right to refuse any name so they could effectively ban things without making it explicit in their rules.--Bcp67 (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Jockey Club in the USA has a specific list - See here The Jockey Club Rule Book Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's intriguing that they don't have the long list of exclusions that we see in the BHA rules, but in practice no horse names seem to take advantage of that broader latitude, except for full stops (e.g. Honor A.P.. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Every breed registry gets to make its own rules. Some breeds require all names to be unique, but don’t ban commercial identification (other than certain blatent trademark violations) so many people add random letters to the beginning of all their horse names to “brand” their farm (for example, all the horses bred by Bazy Tankersley have “AM” as a prefix, for Al-Marah, the ranch she owned) And I really have to share what happens when you allow numbers in horse names. Central European horse breeds, especially Lipizzans and breeds from Hungary, are rife with this stuff. And I think most registries banned playing around with capitalization on papers at the dawn of the computer age, they just put everything in all caps and a letter is a letter. Montanabw (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Split existing category?
We currently have this: Category:American horse racing announcers. Chic Anderson, Larry Collmus, Trevor Denman, Tom Durkin etc. are race announcers but the list has many who are strictly limited to commenting (Sports commentator), i.e Jerry Bailey, Donna Barton Brothers. A few like Mike Battaglia have been both. I changed it to: Category:American horse racing commentators as a sub category of the usual U.S. horse racing etc. plus this Category:Sports commentators

Stretchrunner (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Abandoned race track north of Toronto, Canada
I reverted this unsourced edit which stated there was a former "Derby racetrack" at this location north of Toronto, Canada. I've been unable to locate any information about the track. If anyone has any info it would be great to add it to an article. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Swiss Skydiver vandalism
Eyes on this article folks. Our gal is attracting the wrong kind of attention.  Tigerboy1966  11:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Technical help
I worked on Violet Stakes and when done this [2] appeared immediatey under the Reference section title. Can't figure it out. Looks like a link to a website but when I clicked on it nothing happens. Thanks. Stretchrunner (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of I inserted  and your [2] disappeared.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Much thanks. Stretchrunner (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

New user switching text to table
Hi there. Just a heads up that we've got a new user User:Jsargent2504 who is switching text to table, especially for breeding records. Trying to treat all sires like we do Galileo is just not going to work, and in the process he/she is deleting information and context. I've been reverting. Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reverted a few of the large ones, maybe we need to ask Jsargent2504 to join us here and put their case for changing text to tables so we can see if it's a better option? --Bcp67 (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Created 2021 Road to the Kentucky Derby
Can regulars start going through and adding wikilinks, correcting my mistakes and additional refs in the new 2021 Road to the Kentucky Derby? Its about this time we start getting interested with 6 months to go. Cheers! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brudder Andrusha, I've done a couple of bits around the European Road section today. --Bcp67 (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I took a quick look too. I couldn't find a formal announcement from Churchill Downs for the new year so I added a note. Jlvsclrk (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

– I've been doing some minor updates on this page and came across from the main Prep races that the Jeff Ruby Stakes (Spiral Stakes) has had the qualification points raised to Championship series - Second Leg on par with main Derbies. I'm looking for any other reference before modifying this in the article, but this doesn't surprise me that Churchill Downs Inc. made a nice deal with Turfway Park due to the change of dates last year with Covid-19 problems. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Category ?
Do we really want this category? Category:Filmed deaths of animals Stretchrunner (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weeeelllll... there is the broader category Category:Filmed deaths. I suppose you could run it up the flagpole at categories for deletion and see what happens… I must say I won’t take a position, I’ll just get my popcorn and watch the show... Montanabw (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Naming convention for sports stadia
A request for comment is open regarding the use of parenthetical disambiguation in relation to articles on sports stadia here: Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Input is welcome. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Female horse owners
I stumbled across a conversation between and  that I intruded upon believing that the discussion should included to all who participate on this Project. Stretchrunner has the belief that when he ''creates, updates, or just edit a horse race table, if possible I do my best to find and replace Owner: Mrs. John Doe with showing only HER name. It's very hard to find a female first name but if one gets lucky and does, it can take many hours.'' I disagree with this approach given that changing the name from what was registered when the horse won the event. If the reference (especially in the period when women were not allowed to be owners) given indicates Mrs. Joe Brown or some pseudonym like when Merman who won the 1900 Ascot Gold Cup the name should stay. If the horse is registered to be owned for example by Mrs. John Magnier then that is what should be in the table. The link can go to who the person is but the registered name is given per the reference (WP:V). Opening this up for discussion. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The name should match the source cited. If the source says "Mrs. Percy Highbottom" instead of "Lola Highbottom" then that is what should be in the box. You would have to cite another source confirming the given name of the female owner if the original literature did not report it (which is, of course, more work). Froggerlaura  ribbit 21:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC).
 * If the woman has a Wikipedia article, a piped link should be used to the correct name. If there is a known name, I see no problem with adding a parenthetical that identifies who they are if sourced. While it is true that we need to faithfully site to registration documents, press reports may have used different styles than did the Jockey Club, so we do have to check... when possible, women should not be treated as mere appendages of their husbands, even if that’s what they did 100 years ago. Similarly, there may be an Argument to do the same for people whose name on the registration records are abbreviated, for example, “J.B. Haggin”, who is James Ben Ali Haggin. Montanabw (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Admin help for requested move: Royal Heroine Mile Stakes -> Royal Heroine Stakes
I have updated this article but I do not have admin privileges to move Royal Heroine Mile Stakes to Royal Heroine Stakes due to an existing REDIRECT. The event has been run as the Royal Heroine Stakes since 2014. An uncontested technical move has been requested. Can someone with admin privileges perform this move? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * COMPLETED. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment on SSN at WP:Notability (sports)
There is a discussion on SSN (sport specific guidelines) at RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues. Feel free to go there and post your comments. Cassiopeia(talk) 00:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change in sports notability policy
A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. Also, article creation based on Wikiproject Guidelines would be curtailed. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh my, I created the horse racing SNGs, this is a concern for us. That said, having more than just a database is definitely needed.  Montanabw (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe its a good time to review this Project's SIG and tighten any loopholes. I know we had some issues with a couple of horses that had articles created that lacked significant notability in the past, but some of the issues point out in the proposals thread are looking for massive deletes.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Grand National Winners and Cleanup
Hey all, I'm new to the site but have created a few pages for Grand National Winners who haven't got one yet and am hoping to make one for them all. I've also started going through the winners and races and standardising them (especially infoboxes, flag icons, layout) as well as adding a Grand National Record table and Pedigree for each winning horse.

The pages I've made:
 * Anglo (horse)
 * Gaylad (horse)
 * Grittar
 * Hallo Dandy
 * Kirkland (horse)
 * Last Suspect
 * Merryman II
 * Rubstic
 * Zoedone

Looking for feedback, thanks!

Lankyant (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it at all possible to add a 'latest race' link at the bottom of the infobox on the Grand National main page? Example being London Marathon. Think it would be handy but can't work out how to do it. Should also be added to Kentucky Derby.

Lankyant (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there a go to tool to design racing silks? Would like to get to work on adding some to add to the Grand National races if it's not too difficult.

Lankyant (talk) 00:15, 14April 2021 (UTC)


 * pinging, and  who work in this area.  Please be careful about making mass changes to “standardize”articles without obtaining consensus. You have some good ideas but let’s see them in practice.  Montanabw (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks I will do, and when I say standardise I mean more just making sure odds and flagicons are listed the same style in every race as well as adding conditions and starting prices that were missing to the infoboxes. So no major things or reworks :)

User: Lankyant 02:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me know which silks (which years?) you need and I will happily generate if they don't exist already JockeyColours (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen on the use of flag icons on the Grand National articles. The people and horses mentioned aren't "representing" a country, and MOS:INFOBOXFLAG advises against it as well.--Bcp67 (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And I'm sorry Lankyant if it sounds like I'm objecting to everything, but do we need a Grand National record table for every winner's article? In some cases the horse only ran once in the race. A full table of races might be useful, but we don't see that on many horse articles and it would be very difficult to source in any case.--Bcp67 (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * More positively, welcome to the project - there aren't many of us here, but (hopefully!) we're a co-operative group and I'd say the standard of the horse racing articles is quite good in general. An article for every Grand National is a good target to aim for. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the welcome! In terms of flags I wanted to sort it out because it was only sporadically done and seemed weird and I think it's fine because aren't they seen as 'Irish winners' and 'British trained'? But I agree they aren't entirely necessary I just wasn't liking that they were used differently across different articles.

And I also agree with the record tables for 1 race horses but I saw it more as a quick reference point for people to look at instead of digging into the meat of an article it gives a quick idea of the result but if you dislike I'm happy to delete.

But yes I definitely think that we should aim for a page for each winner.

And yes, I had way too much free time lately so seemed like this would be a useful way to spend it!

[User:Lankyant] 14:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I didn't see your reply! That would be great and much appreciated. I will try and get something together obviously the full list for races would be grand especially for 2021 but that's a lot of work but in terms of winners we have nothing it seems pre 2000 so I know that takes some research which I will try and put together. But for now we need Bobbyjo 1999 -red top with gold sleeves. gold Lorraine cross on centre with green cap with gold stripes.

But instead of full race cards I'd like to prioritise the top 4 finishers from 2004 to 2013 and 2015, 2016, 2017 to make a place table with as we only have the winning colours currently.

Thank you!

User:Lankyant 02:33 15 April 2021

Bob Baffert doping mention
I noticed on the Bob Baffert article that there is no mention of any of the numerous doping issues over the past few years. I think they should be mentioned. Best, Thriley (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * added a bit. whole article needs some tinkering, which I'll done when I'm feeling a little more... charitable. Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Ideas for British races winners lists
I've experimented with adding a couple of new columns to the winners lists, one to show the race status for each year, and the other to link the Racing Post reference specifically to the year. I've used one of this week's races as a trial, the Westow Stakes. If you're interested, could you have a look please and give your thoughts there as to whether it's a good idea, looks useful etc. Thanks, --Bcp67 (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about English law regarding Thoroughbred racing. However in the U.S. there is only one reference needed for the race. We do not need a reference for each individual race. Most of what I see on Wiki only goes back to 1976 in the U.S. and in England to 1988. The reason is that U.S. horse racing and casinos etc. all fall under the jurisdiction of state gambling laws and the racetrack proprietor is solely responsible, and liable for, the content of its published information on each race. Hence, all a Wiki article on the Whatsitsname Stakes needs is a link to that page (e.g the NYRA) or a track's media guide. Other than NYRA tracks and Del Mar etc, that are owned by a state government, when the Wiki article refers to something about the race or a participant etc. that is not on the racetrack's info, then we need to insert a reliable attribution. If the track does not publish the info (and most are now dropping their media guides), and has not passed it to Equibase Co, LLC as their only legal representative, then Wioukipedia needs reliable attributions. Stretchrunner II (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is your source that only one reference for a race is needed? That is poor for an article to only have one sourced reference that is coming from the club that hosts the race. As I have pointed out in the past some of the information in the Media Guides is wrong and incomplete. Also this is Wikipedia with our own criteria to provide information that appropriately WP:V and not a duplicate for what is published by some track's (some holding company) media guide. Obviously you do not think much of the updates to events that I have been doing. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't have any single source for British or Irish race results or history - the source for race results since 1988 is usually the Racing Post database, which began that year. Before that it's usually printed sources like newspapers or books. The Racing Post refs are all added in the References sections of race articles at the moment but many races have been tagged as needing inline citations, so one of the ideas of my experiment is to put the RP ref on the table on the same line as the race itself.  In addition to the above two ideas, I'm also starting to add winning owners to Group 2 race tables, but that's a longer project. --Bcp67 (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * My only query about the article Westow Stakes does not deal with the table format that you are trying to improve but whether the event falls under WP:GNG or our own project definitions of what deserves an article. I know that sometimes folks like to create an article about a horse that has not won a Grade I and then the article has to been deleted. Maybe the project should review this for events. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I think listed stakes meet notability on both sides of the Atlantic, although they don't all need articles. For example, the El Camino Real Derby is "only" a listed stakes, but its very much in the news today because of Rombauer. Jlvsclrk (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * According to our project notability acceptance of an event which has once been a Graded event such as the El Camino Real Derby even though it is Listed now is acceptable since historically it meets the guidelines that the project accepts. However, if the event has only achieved Listed status then I do not see why the event should have an article. There is a cut off point similar to notability of horse and in other sports such as football (players who have not played for professional clubs or teams that have not played in professional leagues). For example why does the Listed Hot Springs Stakes which was created earlier this year have an article and the Listed Gold Fever Stakes at Belmont Park does not? IMO according to our own cutoff point the Hot Springs Stakes should be deleted.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the format - it's great to have a link to the chart available if you want to do more research, and its cool that you've got the Racing Post template that doesn't take up all the space that a full ref does. (As an aside, I bet we could do the same for Equibase charts since the URL link is always a code for the racetrack, the date and race number.) For European racing, I don't think you need all the columns that we might include in North America, like distance, because they don't change as much. I get the impression that the purse isn't nearly as important as well. A major difference is we almost always show the owner in addition to the trainer and jockey.


 * Sorry for joining this discussion so late. I like the idea (especially if it leads to less warnings about lack of references), but I don't like the redundancy of the data displayed in the Ref column as 99.9% of the time it will be a repeat of the year specified in column 1 (very occasionally a NH race can take place twice in the same calendar year).  My preference would be for the RP reference to be used for displaying the Year in column 1, alternatively (via a slightly different RP template) the Ref column could provide (small) added value by displaying the full date on which the race took place. JockeyColours (talk)

Premio Presidente della Repubblica
Dear WikiProject Horse racing. I was thinking about translating the (newly created) Italian wikipage it:Premio Presidente della Repubblica which is about a prestigious prize of the prestigious scientific institution Lincei National Academy (given every year by the Italian president). I was surprised to see that the English page is about horse racing. I'm not the right person that can evaluate the notability of that (horse racing) page. Can you please verify that the existing page meets the notability criteria? Despite the name, it doesn't seem connected to the Italian institutions. --SimoneD89 (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The event in question is currently a Group II event and was once a Group I event and I would assume one of the more prestigious horse races in Italy which according to this Horse Racing Project is well within the WP:GNG guidelines to have an article about it. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As noted above, the article is about a notable horse race (granted far more notable in the past than at present). We could move it to XXXX (horse race) or add an about template to link to XXXX (prize), or create a DAB page that links to both. Whatever works. Jlvsclrk (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your comments. I think it is a good idea to rename the article to XXX (horse racing), because in Italian premio is prize and I've heard only gran premio (grands prix/grand prizes) connected to racing. It is an unfortunate name because the republic president doesn't seem to be involved and also it doesn't seem to be connected with the Italian institutions. I'm really surprised that one can give such a name to something that is not directly organized or connected to the state. I will name the Lincei prize article XXX (prize) and I will let you know when the article is created. --SimoneD89 (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A move have been made for the horse race article and a redirect disambiguation page now holds that title - Premio Presidente della Repubblica Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your availability. --SimoneD89 (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

For information purposes: I posted the following to User talk:Onel5969
Your edit : Broadway Stakes (NYB) moved to draftspace

All Thoroughbred racing in the United States is governed by state gambling laws. Hence, there is only one legal source for referencing those races, that being the racetrack proprietor who holds the gambling license. In the case of the Broadway Stakes, it is owned by the New York Racing Association (NYRA) and all information contained in the Wikipedia article on the Broadway Stakes is derived from the referenced NYRA. Note that in this case the NYRA is a government entity owned by the State of New York. In articles where there might be information not covered by the track owner, i.e. comments about the events during the race that the jockey moved too early etc., or a comment that the horse had not run for two months due to an injury, or the winner lost for the first time in four starts, and more. Those comments come from the media and are referenced at Wikipedia to reputable sources such as the Daily Racing Form, Thoroughbred Daily News, the New York Times, Blood-horse magazine and the like. Further, Equibase Co., LLC is an official source having been authorized as such by racetrack owners plus by licensed breeders for pedigree records. However, Equibase Co., LLC only document races back to 1976 and in a great many cases the races created at Wikipedia go way past that to times as early as 1860. Note too, there are defunct/discontinued races from long ago, many of which are because the racetrack closed or were forced to close through state anti-gambling legislation such as the Hart-Agnew Law. For these historically important Wikipedia articles, we use very reliable sources as references. I hope this helps but I think it would be a lot easier for you and others who work hard to ensure quality for Wikipedia but who don't have in-depth expertise on this particular subject to leave a question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing where someone knowledgeable will certainly answer it. Kindly reverse your edit. Thanks. Stretchrunner II (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO, does Broadway Stakes (NYB) even qualify under WP:GNG ? Its not a graded event and it is merely restricted to NY breds. IMO this article should be deleted or not even started. Under our own project criteria this article is dubious from the start. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , that was one of the two primary reasons I moved it to draft. First, it is woefully undersourced wholly by primary sources. Second, was the notability issue. I'm just slogging through my NPP work and haven't yet responded to yesterday's talk page questions, so this will stand as my response. However, as per draftify, if the process is contested, regardless of its merit, the draft should be returned to mainspace, which I will do shortly. I would definitely vote delete at an AfD, as I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. And thanks for the ping, I was unaware of this discussion.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I totally agree with your response about the formation and content and your direction of questioning the existence of this article. Once the article is live, tag it with an AfD and we'll go from there. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , Project Members: an AfD has been tagged for Broadway Stakes (NYB). Brudder Andrusha (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Articles for deletion/Broadway Stakes (NYB). Brudder Andrusha (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: - Article was deleted. This brings up the question why there is a category of Category:Restricted stakes races in the United States which now has one less entry at 30, and whether the events in this category would qualify under WP:NHORSERACING. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 Kentucky Derby and related articles
Hi all. Can I ask for help reviewing any and all pages related to the 2021 Kentucky Derby. Although the second sample for Medina Spirit was also positive, he has NOT yet been disqualified. That decision will be made by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, which will deliberate at its own sweet pace. (For reference, it took four years before Dancer's Image DQ was officially official.) Folks want to jump ahead of the process though and change the winner. I'm updating as I come across stuff. Oh, and the ban of Baffert at Churchill Downs is official, for now, but we don't yet know to what extent it will be followed at other tracks. Bloodhorse has lots of stuff. I'm using the WaPo article for now, and I expect NYT will have some great stuff since they broke the story on Justify's positive. Jlvsclrk (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the admins of our project should lock on 2021 Kentucky Derby, Medina Spirit and Bob Baffert until things settle down. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As of now, the Derby and Medina Spirit’s articles look mostly OK to me, but if they turn into an editor timesink, RPP could still be requested (I’m not an admin, dang.). Baffert’s article has pending changes protection on it as of today, but someone was doing a bit of a POV hatchet job on the piece, and there were a lot of new and IP edits, so I requested temporary semi-protection to slow things down a but more…I also toned down some of the material to meet NPOV and address recentism. We had a similar problem with Doug O’Neill a few years ago, these drug scandals just need to stick to BLP and usually it all shakes out appropriately in the long run. Montanabw (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

John Rickman (broadcaster)
Hi all. I don’t normally create articles in this area, but in researching a different topic, I came across John Rickman the longtime broadcaster journalist of British horse races and created a quick stub. The article is currently an orphan. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I've managed to find a mention of him in the ITV Seven article and linked. Famous for doffing his trilby hat to the viewers! --Bcp67 (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, thank you.4meter4 (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

AfD created for Hot Rod Charlie
An Afd has been entered for the article about Hot Rod Charlie. Hot Rod Charlie has only won a Grade II event. IMO, a Grade I victory is a minimum to meet the criteria to have an article meeting the project requirements for WP:N and WP:GNG. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Articles for deletion/Hot Rod Charlie. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually Hot Rod Charlie meets GNG, there is no end of coverage of independent and secondary, reliable sourced articles out there for the horse. He does not require any help from the SNG to meet notability. As you all know, no horse needs to win a Grade I race to obtain notability for GNG. However, using SNG is another way a horse may obtain notability, as in the case of winning GI, or multiple significant GII/GIII grade/group races. There are also the hall of fames and such in the SNG. Obviously, if we applied GI as mandatory to GNG, there would be 100s or 1000s of existing articles in violation. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Dawn, I saw the links. Frankly, they are a mess. You have ones running together making it hard work to look at them. Some I did look at are routine race coverage. BTW, Bleacherreport isn't acceptable. Please link up the run on links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your time. The bullets seemed to work fine in my browser so it's strange. I will use a different method though. Some really good links also reside in the article itself. Thanks for letting me know about Bleacherreport. I will look at the links, maybe remove some and add others. Your suggestions are very good. I should be able to get to this tonight. Thanks! 00:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)dawnleelynn(talk)


 * The article has been updated.<i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Might be good for more folks here to comment over there. It’s a useful discussion of both the differences between GNG and SNG (which is a frequent discussion at AfD across multiple topics) and useful to us to help form a consensus for future reference. One thing that periodically has me scratching my head in the past is how to handle notability of those longstanding, historic Derby preps like the Louisiana Derby that may have at times been GI or the equivalent, but aren’t at the moment. Montanabw (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Good point. "Grade I" can be a tricky criteria because the grading looks at past runnings and doesn't reflect the quality of the current year's field. It does seem odd that we'd give Super Stock an automatic notability pass for having won an exceptionally weak Arkansas Derby, but have trouble with Hot Rod Charlie, who won what was one of the strongest preps of the season (the top 3 in Louisiana were in the top 6 of the Derby, and that doesn't even count Mandaloun, who threw a clunker in Louisiana). Right now, Hot Rod Charlie is matching up favourably with where Gun Runner was at the same point in the season (won Louisina Derby, placed in the KD and then had a great performance in June). We waited though for Gun Runner until he turned into a monster at age four. I could argue that almost all of the coverage that includes Hot Rod Charlie is related to the races and not the horse in particular. That was why I originally agreed that the article should be deleted. Now I'm leaning the other way, especially given the Beyer assigned to him from the Belmont (107 - higher than American Pharoah) and the praise for him hanging on despite the torrid pace. (Andy Serling called it the best losing effort in New York since Seattle Slew lost to Exceller - praise indeed). So, yeah. Tough call. Jlvsclrk (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would love to have a horse like Hot Rod Charlie in my stable but with regards what has been asked of us in the past as Wikipedia contributors is to give feedback within the project and provide input and barnstorm with other contributors as to what is acceptable and what is not. I've been involved with WP:FOOTY and that project had serious discussions withing its project to setup the WP:SNG for WP:NFOOTY. That project like other sports projects had to deal with an abundance of contributors that would create dubious articles that would at times annoy the admins and spark off a continuous stream of AfD. They had to specifically determine the criteria of what was an allowable article and what was not. The same was asked of our project that contributors were asked what would be a manageable entry so that articles could withstand the onslaught of questionable actions. No different with this article as the temptation of WP:RECENT is placed asunder while acceptance of an arguable exception is promoted. I think patience would be a virtue with this article but some folks think that just because there is an article on the web about a horse and his performance - IMO that does not make him notable even though you can Google and find many hits. The criteria that was set up by the members of this project for the SNG and decided what is the minimum criteria for an article should stand and be accepted. The changes then should be pointed at WP:NHORSERACING whether exceptions should clearly be added which would accommodate situations such as with Hot Rod Charlie where his performance in US Classic Races this year can been a reason for inclusion. As to the grading of events - that is something we must accept from the TOBA's American Graded Stakes Committee and not for us to judge what is good one year and not another. Its great discussion but to me its off tangent when we clearly have our guidelines. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, just to be clear, WP:NOTE specifies a topic is presumed to merit an article by meeting the WP:GNG or the criteria below outlined below or in the related subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). In this case, the WP:SPORT guideline applies, which states, ""If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)."


 * Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept."


 * So we have here the direct content that says failure to meet the Horseracing SNG does not mean an article must be deleted. It also states we can try to meet GNG. Regarding WP:RECENT, of the three Triple Crown races, for which there were 25 horses who ran in the combined three races, only seven articles were created. That doesn't sound like an abundance.


 * Funny what you said about "does not make him notable even though you can Google and find many hits." If I can't Google to find sources, how do you suggest that I find sources, btw? You know I don't just do a search and throw sites in here in five minutes. It takes time because I do research and learn about the horse and the sites. Last of all, I guess I need to provide the sources again--I mean just the ones that document that he was covered prior to the TC races. And also I am providing three sources wherein the trainer talks about his potentially racing Charlie in one of three upcoming races in the next couple months. Even though the GNG says proof of future notability is not required.


 * Prior to May 1, 2021:


 * Early references:
 * Pedigree Fun Facts: Hot Rod Charlie
 * Tales from the Crib: Hot Rod Charlie
 * Hermitage-born Hot Rod Charlie top Derby horse


 * Breeders Cup
 * Hot Rod Charlie Fresh Off Juvenile Shock
 * Breeders' Cup Cocktails & Conversation Welcomes Boat Racing, Co-Owners of Hot Rod Charlie, to This Week's Show
 * Breeders Cup Contender Hot Rod Charlie


 * Lousiana Derby
 * Hot Rod Charlie sets track record, gets first GII victory in $1M Louisiana Derby
 * Hot Rod Charlie Breaks Through in Louisiana Derby Win
 * Hot Rod Charlie Speeds To Victory In Louisiana Derby
 * Hot Rod Charlie Speeds In For Louisiana Derby
 * Hot Rod Charlie full throttle in TwinSpires.com Louisiana Derby win


 * Santa Anita Park
 * O'Neills Hot Rod Charlie gets in final Kentucky Derby Work As He Drills Six Furlongs in 1:13:68 Prior to Saturday's First Place
 * Hot Rod Charlie Tunes Up at Santa Anita


 * Future races:
 * Pacific Classic Could be Next for Hot Rod Charlie
 * Hot Rod Charlie Full Of Energy After Gallant Belmont Try
 * Saratoga rivalry may be in offing for Essential Quality, Hot Rod Charlie
 * 3Also, I spent much time fixing up his article. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 23:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article deleted/Broadway Stakes (NYB)
This article was put up for deletion by WikiProject Horse racing member User:Brudder Andrusha who stated the following as their reasoning:
 * The article is about an event that fails WP:GNG for the Wikipedia:WikiWikiProject Horse racing. Under project guidelines the event should be at a minimum be graded. This event is a non-graded restricted race which lacks notability. (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

While I may strongly disagree with User:Brudder Andrusa that Thoroughbred race articles at Wikipedia should be at a minimum be graded which eliminates all Listed, Restricted, Ungraded, and Black type stakes races, I respect the opinions of the WikiProject Horse racing members who did not object to the deletion of the Broadway Stakes (NYB) as the members were adhering to the WikiProject guidelines.

Over and above the Non-graded stakes races, there are no Graded stakes races in North America prior to 1973 and prior to 1971 for British & Irish races so this problem will have to be dealt with. Deleting the Listed, Restricted, Ungraded/Black type races represents a massive job. And, these required race deletions will have a profound effect on a multitude of other Wikipedia articles including those for jockeys, trainers, and owners. I do not know how this very difficult deleting situation should be organized in the context of "the event should be at a minimum be graded" policy.

Regarding articles for horses User:Brudder Andrusha has also stated: "IMO, a Grade I victory is a minimum to meet the criteria to have an article meeting the project requirements for WP:N and WP:GNG.

I, and obviously the industry itself, believe State/Province-bred races are a very important and vital part of Thoroughbred racing as are a number of ungraded/Black type stakes. My view is shared by many other editors at Wikipedia as evidenced by the volume of those types of articles they have created or contributed to which includes Brudder Andrusha' substantial edits and races. (e.g. Charles Town Oaks, Harlan's Holiday Stakes, Parx Dash Stakes and others). Although WikiProject's deletion policy will have enormous consequences for Wikipedia we nevertheless have to accept that the Broadway Stakes (NYB) article had to be deleted as User:Brudder Andrusha's position is that the article's deletion is enunciated in the WikiProject's established guideline and was done through the due process Wikipedia stipulates for article deletions.

There are many more such races in Wikipedia for Europe that don't meet the WikiProject guidelines and we will need a number of volunteers to help prepare them for the deletion process. There are Wikipedia articles List of British flat horse races and List of Irish flat horse races as follows, all of which will have be deleted in order to meet the WikiProject's guideline.

Similarly, there are Australian listed races like the G A Towton Cup that will have to be deleted. I could not find a list.

Ireland:

Other articles requiring deletion
Albeit reluctantly, I will follow the WikiProject guidelines and Wikipedia policy and help as much as possible to expedite the posting of the following additional races as Articles for deletion:

Category:Restricted stakes races in the United States Category:Ungraded stakes races in the United States Category:Listed stakes races in the United States

The New York-Bred 2021 Stakes Schedule including New York Stallion Series events has 40 races with the following values that in fact equal or far exceed the Category:Grade 3 stakes races in the United States:
 * $100,000 : 21
 * $125,000 : 4
 * $150,000 : 7
 * $200,000 : 8

Some of those New York-Bred races already in Wikipedia are:
 * Bertram F. Bongard Stakes - the Wikipedia article says it's not, but it is in fact Restricted to State of New York breds
 * Gander Stakes - Restricted to State of New York breds
 * Sleepy Hollow Stakes - Restricted to State of New York breds
 * New York Derby - Restricted to State of New York breds
 * Damon Runyon Stakes - Restricted to State of New York breds; has ref to the racetrack plus 2 refs to 2 races out of the 50 runnings
 * New York Breeders' Futurity - Restricted to State of New York breds; has ref to the racetrack media guide plus 2 refs to 2 races out of the 50+ runnings
 * Yaddo Handicap - Restricted to State of New York State breds; 2 refs, both dead

Other states:
 * Jennings Handicap - Restricted to State of Maryland breds; only ref (not linked): 2007 Maryland Jockey Club Media Guide, page 68-69 on March 3, 2007; a Google name search returned nothing


 * California Derby - Restricted race to State of California breds; one ref to a Pedigree Query website which has been declared invalid by Wikipedia for referencing


 * California Oaks (Black type) - Restricted to State of California breds; inaugurated in 1896, Wikipedia table 1994-2020 (22 out of 80+ runnings); refs for 2 years only out of 80+ years it was run; a Google name search returned nothing


 * Oceanside Stakes - Del Mar, Calfornia Restricted based on earnings
 * Graduation Stakes - Restricted to State of California breds (inaugurated in 1952); 1 ref to Del Mar's "Stakes Schedule" for 2011


 * Khaled Stakes - Restricted to State of California breds; 1 dead ref, 1 meaningless ref, 1 invalid ref (to YouTube)


 * Willard L. Proctor Memorial Stakes - discontinued / Restricted California race - only ref (dead link) to a newspaper story on 2008 race.


 * Wildcat Heir Stakes - Restricted to State of Florida breds

All are Restricted races to horses bred either in the State of Florida or the State of California: Sunshine Millions Classic Sunshine Millions Dash Sunshine Millions Distaff Sunshine Millions Filly & Mare Sprint Sunshine Millions Filly & Mare Turf Sunshine Millions Oaks Sunshine Millions Sprint Sunshine Millions Turf Stakes Only ref is to the racetrack or to invalid Pedigree Query website, isdead or no ref at all

Canada
Category:Restricted stakes races in Canada Category:Ungraded stakes races in Canada

In Canada where all Thoughbred races are part of the U.S. graded stakes system, the races restricted to Province-breds led to a highly successful breeding industry aided and inspired by the astonishing success of the now legendary Northern Dancer. Regardless, we must follow WikiProject guidelines and delete the following 62 Restricted races in the Province of Ontario: Canadian Triple Crown races: Queen's Plate, Prince of Wales Stakes, Breeders' Stakes plus: Ontario Sire Stakes (not listed below) Achievement Stakes Algoma Stakes Bison City Stakes Clarendon Stakes Coronation Futurity Stakes Cup and Saucer Stakes Fanfreluche Stakes Fury Stakes Jammed Lovely Stakes Ontario Damsel Stakes Ontario Lassie Stakes Plate Trial Stakes Princess Elizabeth Stakes (Canada) Queenston Stakes Shady Well Stakes Simcoe Stakes Vandal Stakes Wonder Where Stakes Woodbine Oaks

In addition to the above Canadian Restricted races there are forty Ungraded stakes races in Canada that will also have to be deleted. They are: Alywow Stakes Ballade Stakes Belle Mahone Stakes Bold Ruckus Stakes Bull Page Stakes Bunty Lawless Stakes Charlie Barley Stakes Chief Bearhart Stakes Classy 'N Smart Stakes Colin Stakes Deputy Minister Stakes Display Stakes Duchess Stakes Frost King Stakes Glorious Song Stakes Hill 'n' Dale Stakes Kingarvie Stakes La Prevoyante Stakes Lady Angela Stakes La Lorgnette Stakes Manitoba Derby Maple Leaf Stakes My Dear Stakes Nandi Stakes New Providence Stakes Ontario Debutante Stakes Ontario Fashion Stakes Overskate Stakes Shepperton Stakes Silver Deputy Stakes Sir Barton Stakes South Ocean Stakes Star Shoot Stakes Steady Growth Stakes Toronto Cup Stakes Vice Regent Stakes Victoria Park Stakes Victoria Stakes Victoriana Stakes Woodstock Stakes

We currently have 66 WikiProject Horse racing members so we need to pitch in and get this cleanup done ASAP. Thanks. Stretchrunner II (talk)

Comments

 * 3 things
 * Don't like your use of must or done asap. Editors can differ and have you ever heard of WP:NODEADLINE?
 * There are 66 members but how many are actually active is anyone's guest. My own horse racing expertise is harness racing.
 * Lastly, at least one of those races was a Grade III race.
 * Now back to something else....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * So if I'm reading this correctly, we might as well stop updating the results tables for all British and Irish Listed and ungraded races now, because the race articles are going to be deleted? --Bcp67 (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , before gung-ho on deleting ad-hoc, there needs to be a project wide discussion of our path forward after what was deleted (Broadway Stakes (NYB)) and what was not (Hot Rod Charlie) and what you have just delivered in your grand scale analysis. The discussion should deal upon WP:NHORSERACING's inclusion and whether there needs to be an adjustment. Also each country is different. For instance we had this discussion a few years ago and the Europeans, in particularly the British have "Heritage" events that are not graded but historically important. Also Canadian restricted races are not equivalent to State bred NY Restricted. While I am opposed to state bred restricted events I am definitely not against Canadian restricted (e.g. Canadian Triple Crown but yes against Ontario provincial restrictions) and not against Australian events like the Magic Millions and All Star Mile etc. Also some Listed race will need to stay because they were once Graded/Group events so that makes the qualify under today's inclusion. For example your example of the Western Australian G A Towton Cup is incorrect since in 2004 it was GIII which makes it ok. I think this is an excellent opportunity for the project to focus on whats appropriate (so we can dedicate time and effort) and whats not (so we don't get disappointed and defensive about articles that have been created with much time spent and then seeing them deleted). Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

A race or a race meet that may be questionable by the general WP:GNG criteria may be notable or not by assessing the following additional factors:
 * Comment: First off, WHOA!  **I** wrote the Horse racing SNG as a guideline for those outside this sport who needed guidelines about people and horse notability (this after someone tried an AfD on a 19th century jockey because he was supposedly an "amateur" not a "professional"... sigh). I did post here when I was doing it, and I can't recall if there was much comment, but I would have included anything mentioned. At WP:NHORSERACING, the "GI OR EQUIVALENT" criteria is intended to be an inclusive "presumed notable" slam dunk without need for additional discussion. It is not an exclusionary comment that anything or anyone not a GI is not notable.  Further, the SNG (which no one seems to have actually read) contains the statement "Notability for horses or persons associated with horse racing who were not competitors or do not meet the criteria above may be presumed notable if they meet GNG for any of the following..."  The whole thing is to make the easy calls.  GNG always applies beyond an SNG.   Montanabw (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Further, to not bog down NHORSERACING, I wrote a supplementary essay of additional guidelines, linked at the SNG, and it is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Horse_racing/Notability In that essay, I outlined some general guidelines that would be of additional assistance, including horse races. There, I outlined the following criteria:
 * Criteria supporting notability
 * 1) A group 1, grade I or equivalent race is presumed notable
 * 2) A race that previously was a group 1, grade I, or equivalent race is presumed notable even if it is no longer held or no longer in that class
 * 3) A race meet with multiple graded stakes races or the equivalent
 * 4) A race meet offering races with large amounts of purse money for the region in which they are held
 * 5) A race or race meet that is unique in some fashion that generates coverage from neutral third-party news sources, even if not national in focus. Examples may include pony races for young riders, mule races, races for horse breeds that have limited racing opportunities.
 * 6) A race meet, even if small, if it is one of a very few that exist in the given area (state, region or nation).
 * 7) Races or meets that are in some fashion a significant historic first (the competition itself, not the participants)

These criteria do not mandate deletion, but may indicate that a competition is not notable
 * Criteria supporting deletion


 * 1) A race meet with no graded stakes races, such as a county fair meet, unless the meet or type of race has characteristics noted above in criteria supporting notability.
 * 2) Imaginary horse races or fictional horse race meets
 * 3) Races or meets merely named after a famous individual without otherwise meeting any indicia of notability

I hope this clarifies things, and for godsake, let's all settle down here! Montanabw (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I may not be as much of a horse expert as others. But i have worked with the Notability guidelines quite a bit. Let me say first that montanabw has made a plethora of good points and quoted guidelines that you should probably study. I know I will.


 * Now in reference to WP:N. “A topic is presumed to merit an article if: it either meets GNG below, or the criteria outlined in a SNG.”


 * And basically, the WP:NSPORT SNG says the same at the top.


 * And now, there are four basic paths for notability in WP:NHORSERACING. And after those are seven alternate paths to notability. What is so special about Grade I that someone thinks it can be used to fail an article from GNG? And if you could use it, then all paths being equal, you can use all paths. So now we can fail a horse for not being in the hall of fame. That’s why all of this is faulty logic.


 * As listed in the GNG, the only SNGs that can be used in some way, that is to keep an article from being written are biographies, politicians, and films.


 * Also in the horse racing SNG, "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted;"


 * I affirm Montanabw’s position along with what I’ve written. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 18:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * From your understanding what is your opinion about the article Yaddo Handicap, an event which was on the above list provided by Stretchrunner II which is a restricted New York State Bred event. The article has two references for the whole article, both of which are dead. The article has been in existence since 2011. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This issue obviously falls under the umbrella of supplementary essays montanabw wrote. And I see she has responded.<i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I was more interested in seeing whether you would agree if the article fails WP:V and not whether the fact that its a restricted NY Bred race which IMO doesn't makes it notable. The article is not unsimilar to the recently deleted Broadway Stakes (NYB). Remember, that article was initially found to be deficient by a Wikipedian that is not on member of this project. Maybe can shed some light on what they think of the Yaddo Handicap article. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , hi, and I want to make it clear that I'm only responding to your question, not commenting on this discussion as a whole, since I have no expertise in horse racing. Regarding the article you ask about, currently it doesn't come close to passing GNG, since the only 2 sources are primary. A brief WP:BEFORE search did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources which would meet GNG. Hope this helps, for what it's worth.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 14:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources
 * •Yaddo Handicap
 * •Yaddo Handicap
 * •Sabellina Takes Narrow Yaddo Handicap Victory
 * •Saratoga Race Course 2021 Schedule
 * •Ransom's Pride wins Yaddo Handicap
 * •Bond Racing Stables
 * •Saratoga Race Course’s 2020 Stakes Schedule Topped by Early Travers on August 8
 * •New York-Bred Revised Stakes Schedule
 * •Yaddo Archive Records
 * <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC) now we have replacements for the two dead links…


 * Yaddo Handicap as it stands now has been tagged for WP:V and WP:Notability. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment:
 * Yes, about that... I thought you had understood the guideline regarding doing due diligence on sources prior to tagging for notability for AfD or on current articles. However, I'm not sure now after seeing the tagging and comments on Yaddo Handicap.


 * I let your previous comment go regarding Hot Rod Charlie because of your misunderstanding of the SNG versus the GNG and the Grade 1 "requirement." Your comment, "IMO that does not make him notable even though you can Google and find many hits." The guideline actually requires you to search for hits prior to putting an AfD tag on an article. See here:


 * Reading from WP:BEFORE which is in Articles for deletion, it says, "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." There is more to read there. Similar content exists in New pages patrol under Articles for deletion (AfD). It says, "You must read and follow WP:BEFORE before nominating an article at AfD..." And again, there is more to read, a listing of places to search and some scripts to use to find sources.


 * Let us also address putting a notability tag on an article as has been done on Yaddo Handicap. See WP:N. "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article"


 * "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." I have copied in just the immediate portion but it goes on to state further that editors have more responsibility for the article before doing an AfD or tagging an article. Thus, you cannot tag an article for Notability based on just the sources you see there. In fact, the wording of the tag you placed says, "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline." The topic (or subject) and not the article is what is being disputed regarding notability by that tag. You cannot know if the subject is notable solely by the references in the article.


 * Now regarding Wikipedia:Verifiability WP:V Here is another area where there is more to the guideline to consider than just a simple tag and go. But I will just say that most editors will object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. However, all content that is not cited in an article is subject to this tag...as the guideline states, although it does make the suggestion that if you suspect it can be cited, you should cite it if you can.


 * Since you claim to be a stickler for the guidelines, I assume you want to be certain that there are or are not enough reliable sources for Yaddo Handicap in the places mentioned in the WP:BEFORE section. I only searched in the first one. It's really up to you in this case since you tagged it. Wikipedia is at the core first about Notability and it is not designed for tagging articles with a Notability tag or putting them up for AfD without some legwork first.<i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 03:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Things like restricted stakes races probably need to be more fully discussed by the project, but they may meet GNG in some cases. I am not sure if other countries besides the US have these races with geographic restrictions (in the US they are tied to breeder incentives and the purses are usually funded by state gambling tax money, which is why they are popular), but it's a good conversation to have. Basically, we don't need to have an article on every race at every track in the world, but there may be room for some of them under the "one season of professional cricket in Manchester" standard.  Don' t know.  Montanabw (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Canada has a lot of restricted races, some of which have articles, some (most I daresay) do not. There are a few obvious ones that should and do: the Triple Crown and Triple Tiara being the most obvious. Just about all of the rest get some coverage in the press, and a lot more so if they attract a notable horse. But from a maintenance POV, they're a bit of a nightmare because there's really no way of knowing if they have an article or not, and you can't see a race history in Equibase for ungraded races (although you can of course find individual charts if you already know the winner). To illustrate the maintenance issue, I took a look at Pink Lloyd's wins: half of them are graded and the underlying race articles are up to date - great. The other half are restricted, which is where it gets tricky. One doesn't have an article, which is fine. That leaves five restricted races with articles, only 1 of which is up to date. Anyways, I don't like the idea of deleting articles created in good faith, and especially if they've had notable winners in their day, but the ones we keep could use some polish. I see a lot are still talking about Polytrack when Woodbine switched to Tapeta ages ago. Ah well, time to get busy. Jlvsclrk (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Sorry I'm late, and I'm not sure how relevant this is but... At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, I think we should not lose sight of the fact that the final "G" of GNG and SNG stands for "Guidline". I tend to deal with horses rather than races and my rule of thumb is that if a post-1971 horse didn't win a G1 there should be very good reasons for creating an article and that these reasons should be spelled out in the lede. So for example Celestial Storm never won a G1 but was one of the highest rated horses in Europe in 1986 and 1987. Quixall Crossett could not have won a G1 if you strapped a rocket to his rear end, but he got more mainstream media attention than most G1 winners. Common sense is the best guideline.  Tigerboy1966  08:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Tuesdee Testa and Dark Mirage
Would some members from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Tuesdee Testa? I'm not sure all of the extra detail about the horse is really necessary because there's already a stand-alone article about the horse at Dark Mirage. I've started a talk page discussion about this at Talk:Tuesdee Testa for reference and would appreciate any input. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Richard Baerlein
Hi all. In expanding Deaths in 1995, I discovered an obituary on horse racing journalist Richard Baerlein, who we currently have no article on. I thought someone from this project might be interested in creating one, so I dug up another source as well. Here they are:
 * (originally published in 1995, but the online article doesn't give a day)

If you have access to newspapers.com, there is also an obituary in The Guardian: here. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis and sports
New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help expand? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s pretty much illegal for the horses. Maybe let us know if that becomes an issue in the article. Montanabw (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Letruska
Hi y'all. If anyone knows of any sources for Mexican horse racing, I need them for details on Letruska's first six starts. Thanks! Jlvsclrk (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Barbara Jo Rubin
My draft for Barbara Jo Rubin was recently put into mainspace. According to sources, Rubin is the first woman to win a professional horse race. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Inadded a little. Hope it helps.  Montanabw (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Percussionist
I was wondering if the Subsequent Group 1 wins section of 2013 Epsom Derby should include Percussionist's win in the Grand National Hurdle Stakes.  Tigerboy1966  07:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Afd
Discussion in progress of peripheral interest to members of this project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred. Montanabw (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

State Of Rest
Calling, , ,. Please take a look at the article I've created for dual hemisphere GI winner State Of Rest. I usually don't go down this path of creating an article for a horse and I known you folks are more experienced in this area. I have missing links and a background update into the breeding aspect of the horse would be a great addition. Thanks. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. I have added some material to the background and pedigree. I will also look up the sales results in the original currency which would be either euros or guineas.  Tigerboy1966  09:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like £45,000 as a foal and 60,000 guineas as a yearling, per this report --Bcp67 (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Tattersalls still selling in guineas. Looks like RP's error.81.168.89.89 (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - I didn't spot that. It's certainly 45,000gns at the Tatts December 18 foal sale from the sales result cited in the article.--Bcp67 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Super. Also there is a change of ownership. Not sure if it was early this year or if it was last year. The Sportinglife charts don't list the owner at the time of the event. I didn't check Racing Post but I think you folks will quickly pick that up. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Two possibly non-notable stubs
Hi, I found these two related unsourced racehorse stubs, both tagged for notability for over a decade: Secret Firm and Secret Hello. Some Googling on my part seems to confirm that they probably don't pass WP:GNG, but I don't know the first thing about horse racing/racehorses and whether any specific criteria may apply. Could someone here determine whether these articles need to be deleted or saved? Thanks! Lennart97 (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that these two were also included in a list of possible deletion candidates many years ago by . Out of the articles mentioned there, Altibr and Grozny (horse) are also still around without any proper sourcing. And while we're at it, Danetime has the same issue. Lennart97 (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Could Grozny not be notable for winning the Derby Nacional? He is listed as a winner here with further details here

Lankyant (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising this again. Secret Firm and Secret Hello have now been prodded. Altibr, Grozny (horse) and Danetime were all decent racehorses but fail GNG so feel free to prod them as well.  Tigerboy1966  18:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually both articles are at AFD now....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think Danetime can probably be salvaged. One source, but indicated he was a leading sire in Western Australia.  Even if he didn’t have a G1 racing record, if he was significant as a sire, that would meet GNG. Probably worth looking into and seeing if more could be added. I’ll look at the other two and see if we can find more.  Montanabw (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Follow up— basically, I think Secret Hello just barely passes the criteria for GNG, as I think he won a grade one futurity as a two-year-old. I think Grozny can also be salvaged, as we have very little on races in Latin America and the one he did win appears to be quite significant. I do think it is important that we factor in that most of the sources on that article are probably in Spanish. I think that Altibr and Secret Firm can both go, as neither of them won a grade one race, nor do I see a significant record at stud. Given that we do have a SNG for race horses, I think we can apply it in these cases to help refine where the line is. Montanabw (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with Montanabw Lankyant (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, for picking this up so quickly! Lennart97 (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Secret Hello has been relisted. My own position is that this horse’s article is exactly where the line for notability gets drawn, I just am not quite sure which side we should draw on. I voted “week keep“ at the AFD, and would value everyone else weighing in, so that we have a really good test case for consensus. Montanabw (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Another delete
Clickity Clack - should it be deleted? The horse won only one non-graded stakes which was a restricted stakes which kind have been deleted at Wikipedia). Stretchrunner II (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * CLickity Clack's win came in the Princess Elizabeth Stakes (Canada), whose article says it is Canada's most valuable race for juvenile fillies. The race is restricted to Canadian-bred horses, but so is the Queen's Plate, which is non-graded for the same reason. I'd say keep. if it passes the GNG.--Bcp67 (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How does a GNG assessment happen? I have always assumed "notability" came from a major race win in whatever country (Canada's Queen's Plate is, the Princess Elizabeth is not), or internationally such as a Breeders' Cup, an "Arc" and the like worldwide. Stretchrunner II (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Coverage in reliable sources basically - see WP:GNG. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi gang, PLEASE read our SNG for racehorses at WP:NHORSERACING and its supplemental subpage. I busted my ass to create those guidelines, and carefully Sheparded them past the NSPORTS crowd to make it a solid guideline.  We can tweak the guideline, but could you guys please read the dang thing first before putting up a bunch of stuff for deletion and then creating drama. Sorry to be a little grumpy, but I really did put lots and lots and lots of careful work into that SNG, with input from the group that was here at the time it was created.  Montanabw (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh and, if some guy who played a couple games of professional football in the Extreme Football League gets his Wikipedia article, God knows a winner of a G1 race should get their article too, lol. Montanabw (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again discussion about inclusion is worth debating and revisted. Articles about winners of restricted race is well documented in debates above. Allowing articles like this joke is opening doors for a barrage of puerility. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This particular horse is yet another example of the gray area. Like I say, if some guy who played a single game of professional cricket in Sri Lanka gets a WP article than so should horses like these.  But I'm not sure what the current consensus is for notability of obscure cricket or football players.  Anyone?  Montanabw (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

New York Driving Club? Gentlemen's Driving Association?
I've been working on Fleetwood Park Racetrack. My main interest is as part of Bronx history; I know almost nothing about horse racing. One thing that puzzles me about the historical sources is the mention of both the New York Driving Club and the Gentlemen's Driving Association. Were these two separate entities who ran the track at different times? Two names for the same entity? Two different entities that co-existed and did different things? Anybody know anything about this history? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, no sooner did I post the above, I found this. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC that could affect this project
There is a titling RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles that will affect many articles at this project. There was discussion of making the RfC handled bit by bit before all projects understood the ramifications with entertainment being singled out next in a deleted draft, and other projects after that. Whether you agree or don't agree please join in the discussion for this massive Wikipedia change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Notability SNG update
I noticed that WP:NOTABILITY has been updated a little bit since the horse racing SNG was created. Basically, the notability standard now ranks GNG & SNG as coequal alternative criteria, one does not supersede the other. So I made a few minor copy edit at WikiProject Horse racing/Notability, and if anyone wants to look at them, now you know. ;) Montanabw (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Popular pages
Hi, Today I added "Popular pages" wikilink for "WikiProject Horse racing" to the project page. Popular pages is a bot-generated (monthly) list of pageviews, useful for focused cleanup of frequently viewed articles. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Latin American Racing
I have noticed a dearth of articles and information on horse racing in Latin America (probably largely due to a similar dearth of available sources in English). Thus far, almost everything (racetracks, graded/group stakes races, notable people and horses, etc.) is either non-existent or a stub, with the occasional exception of some horses that came north to the US to race. I'm slowly trying to help fill that gap, but it's a pretty large one. The main priority is the countries of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Peru, since they are the largest, most important, and most notable horse racing countries in the region; Argentina in particular. Uruguay, Puerto Rico, Panama, and Venezuela are of lesser but still notable importance, and a lot of notable US racehorses did a significant amount in Mexico in the 20th century, even if modern racing in the country is much less notable. There is also some racing/breeding in Ecuador, Columbia, the Dominican Republic, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Bolivia, and Guatemala, but probably not of enough importance to be anything more than noted as existing. The main international group in the region is OSAF, and they have a website in English. I have compiled a list of potential sources (mostly in Spanish and Portuguese, although with a few in English). I would greatly appreciate any help or recommendations for articles of priority to create/edit (I keep flitting between giving primary priority to important G1 races, racetracks, prominent people, top modern horses, and horses of significant historical importance). TabbyLadrona (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Pending proposal to declare NSPORTS (and NHORSERACING) an invalid argument at AfD
A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS or NHORSERACING] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Village pump (policy). Cbl62 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Notable?
I'm thinking of nominating Garde Champetre for deletion. Cross-country specialist and a Cheltenham Festival winner, but his highest-level win was a Grade 2 novices' chase hurdle. I can't see any great claim to notability here. Any views? --Bcp67 (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made the references better in the article and I found this reference:, is that a good cause for notability? Lankyant (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would lean slightly towards keeping. I suppose strictly doesn't meet WP:NHORSERACING but multiple Festival wins plus the Grade 2 feels like he is only missing out because the X-Country isn't graded, even though it's the top race in the discipline. Peaky76 (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a fair comment, and the sales record article also gives it a nudge towards notability as well. I won't nominate it.--Bcp67 (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Horse age debate
There's a debate about how to display the age at death of a horse, discussion at Talk:Bobs Worth. Would be good to get the views of project members. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Infoboxes and major races
After a hiatus, I've finally found time to get back doing British jockey biographies. I've built a script to help generate infoboxes and it occurred to me - I'm not aware of any agreed criteria on what goes in them. Are there any? My default has been: The races are then duplicated in the major races section of the main article. I'm kind of ambivalent about this - it feels like unnecessary duplication, but then again I'm sure some people prefer them listed here than the infobox. I'm also ambivalent at what goes in them. For the likes of Moore or Dettori, the listing seems to go on forever, even with just G1s, but for some lesser known jockeys it feels like major handicaps might be worth including as career landmarks. The long and the short of it is - what do we want in the infoboxes/major races list? Peaky76 (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Races: Group/Grade 1 wins with years, Classics listed first in a separate list
 * Horses: Any horses on which the jockey has won a Group 1, if the horse has an article
 * Awards: Champion Apprentice/Jockey, Lester Awards, Sports Personality of the Year (or equivalent)
 * Major races has always been a problem for me! Races like the Grand National and Irish Grand National often get included in major wins and I usually remove them - objectively the National is "just" a Grade 3 handicap, but we all know that it's a huge race, and a world of difference from the ordinary Grade 3 jumps race. So maybe the major wins criteria could be G1 wins, plus a specific list of other major races. Problems also arise for jockeys who rode in the pre Group-race days, where something like the Cambridgeshire or Imperial Cup would have been viewed as a major race at the time, or races which have changed status - my favourite example is the Lockinge Stakes, now a G1 but when I started watching racing it was a G3 race - we include all wins in it in a jockey's major wins section, regardless of its status at the time. We don't include G1 wins for races which have lost their status I think - the Flying Childers is the only UK example of this, but there are many Italian ex-G1 races. By rights we ought to show all a jockey or trainer's G1 wins I'd say.


 * Back to the infobox / major wins discussion - I'd rather see the wins and horses in the article section than infobox given the choice, to avoid duplication and an over-long infobox. Anyway, preferably one or the other but not both.


 * There's also often an honours section in the infobox too, showing where a race or award has been named after someone - more often a horse but sometimes a jockey or trainer.--Bcp67 (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you've hit on some of my dilemmas there! Most of my biogs are for historic jockeys and sources make a much bigger fuss about stuff like the Cambridgeshire, Lincoln and November Handicap. Makes me think we should possibly make a distinction/allowance for historical value. I know what you mean about the GN as well. My thoughts would be that to non-racing people the GN is *the* big race, so to not include it might be correct in a racing purist sense, but less useful in a general encyclopaedic one. And naming of races is another dilemma. My particular bugbear is the Vertem Futurity. I can't get used to that IRL and it seems weird using it anachronistically here, so where obvious I'm using the historic names - Timeform Gold Cup, Racing Post Trophy - where I can.


 * If I started noting some of this down as guidance on the infobox page, would you mind casting your eye over it? Peaky76 (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

China Horse Club
Hello, I noticed a brand new editor has been adding unsourced promotional material to China Horse Club. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

"Who" versus "it", "that" or "which"
I have noticed several times that some people on Wikipedia seem to like to use "who" to refer to racehorses. For examples, see the opening sentence of Secretariat (horse), Seattle Slew, War Admiral, Whirlaway and Rombauer (horse). To me it seems a bit strange. I doubt that is generally done for other animals. Is this a widely supported convention? Has this been previously discussed as a matter of Wikipedia MoS convention? —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been previously discussed. "Who" is used to introduce relative clauses for named horses. I don't follow other animal articles but have noted they follow the same convention. Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just found it in some articles about other animals as well (e.g., for named individual orcas and giant pandas). Perhaps it should be included in the MoS. I looked for it there and didn't find it. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I opened a further discussion of this issue at WT:MOS. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Henry Davies (Hampshire cricketer)
Hi all, just over from the cricket project. I was looking to expand this rather obscure Hampshire cricketer, only to find out he was a rather successful jockey, riding in 1,064 races and winning 332 of these. I wonder if anyone here can find some reliable sources for his horse racing career? Cheers, StickyWicket (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

2022 Grand National
Can anyone please add a race summary to 2022 Grand National ASAP so we can get it on the In The News? Lankyant (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The race summary still needs doing, I think it's a fairly strong article and could go for good status but it needs a race summary. Anyone able to give it a go? Lankyant (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Sonny Leon jockey of Rich Strike
I recently created an article for Sonny Leon, the jockey of Rich Strike, the winner of the 2022 Kentucky Derby. His notability has been questioned. I think he meets notability requirements with the derby win. Thriley (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Without a doubt a Grade 1 Classic winning jockey in my mind would qualify under WP:GNG. What is needed for the original article before it was REDIRECTed is more references indicating his notability. For example the jockey has won 770 events in his career in the US since 2015 (Equibase). According to the DRF ref on the 2022 Kentucky Derby (used also in the original article) is that he has established himself on the Ohio circuit and has won several meetings as the winningest jockey. Well that's a start... But I don't think this is the end because he definitely was a top jockey in his native Venezuela. I'm sure this capable jockey by his phenomenal ride, we have not heard the end of this and if Rich Strike continues to perform well then there will be more articles about this jockey. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Jockey jerseys
Hi! I'm not much of a horse racing guy, but I saw Lester Piggott up at WP:ITN/C. Are the jerseys for all major events underneath the infobox really suitable? On mobile it takes up between 5 and 8 full screens before you can through the remainder of the article prose. This seems quite crufty to me. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * They should never have been included in the article relating to Lester Piggott, they should only be in a specific horse race, such as 1983 Epsom Derby. They include also include second and third place finishes too, I have therefore removed them. Seth Whales   talk  21:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like a significantly common occourance, the amount of jockeys at .  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Only one set of thumbnails should be shown unless user explicitly expands to show more. However the templates used do not seem to collapse correctly on mobile. I will investigate and try to get templates updated. JockeyColours (talk)
 * I have now edited this page Queen_of_Scots_Stakes to not display images when accessed via a mobile device (max-width: 767px). Note that simply accessing the mobile site (en.m.wikipedia.org) via a PC will still display images.  Any thoughts? JockeyColours (talk)
 * Looks like a good solution - I tried the page on mobile and couldn't see the colours, as expected from your comment above.--Bcp67 (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This change has now been carried out on the standard templates used to display this type of content, so now applies to all pages. Thanks to the administrators of these templates for making it happen.

Does Munnings deserve an article by now?
Munnings 2006 (Speightstown - La Comete, by Holy Bull) never won a G1 but did win 3 G2s including Woody Stephens Stakes, Tom Fool Handicap and the now Listed Gulfstream Park Sprint Championship Stakes. However, what's more impressive about Munnings has evolved as a sire. He now has sired five G1 winners including multiple G1 winner Jack Christopher who this Saturday also won the now G1 Woody Stephens Stakes. He's on my do list but if someone wants to start I'll help out. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC) if you haven't gotten started on this, just FYI that WP:NHORSERACING clearly allows sires of significance (i.e. Tapit) to be deemed notable even if their own race record was modest. Montanabw (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The linking of "turf"
There appear to be almost 400 horse-related articles that link the word "turf" like this: turf. This odd way of linking made sense in the years before 2016, when was a disambiguation page and  a broad-concept article. But that's not the case anymore: "Grass" is now a redirect to the plant family Poaceae, which is clearly not the intended meaning here.

What should we do about these? Assuming there are no instances of "turf" simply referring to horse racing in general, we could either change the link to point to something more relevant (Turf? Sports turf? an as-of-yet-nonexistent redirect to a relevant section of Horse racing?), or unlink it altogether (per MOS:OL).

Any thoughts or ideas? – Uanfala (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice this earlier but it's a good point. Perhaps such links should go instead to the article on Track surface, which could be expanded to talk more about turf as a racing surface, perhaps why it's generally safer for horses to run on, how its affected by weather... Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * That or the Glossary... if we have an entry for turf in the glossary. But Sports turf works for me, maybe just touch up that article so there's an anchor link to a horse racing section??  Montanabw (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Flightline - Beyer Speed Figure
With all the frenzy about Flightline an unreferenced addition to his statistics to include his Beyer Speed Figure in his statistics. My problem with this inclusion, is that there is already a reference for his performance from Equibase in his statistics - not Daily Racing Form where the Beyers are published. Equibase provides a timeform rating which is included in the general "Results" not in each individual race result. These kind of inclusions open a can of worms. In particular, changing format of the Statistics table (which IMO should be standardized), updating other horse's statistics, etc. Thoughts from others? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Alas, the Equibase speed figure is not a Timeform rating. It's not adjusted for the racing surface - handicappers don't really pay attention to the number as a result. (For example, his second start was impressive enough, but giving a figure to it of 127 compared to "just" 128 for the Pacific Classic makes a mockery of their method). The Beyer Speed Figure is the most generally recognized figure in North America, and there's a reference in the body of the article for each number. I'll update the ref cells in the table to include the sources for the BSF. Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. There were formatting errors with the references. I corrected them.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And speed figures are not only different for every race but sometimes are adjusted later. They could be discussed in the commentary, but I don't think we want to start putting these in infoboxes or tables. Montanabw (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Genetic pedigrees
Seems like it would be information to mention, on pages like that for St. Simon, that strong l DNA evidence now shows a divergence between the GSB pedigree and some actual genetic lineages.

The correction significantly changes the apparent contemporary influence of founding sire lines.

“According to pedigree information only few of the tested males trace back paternally to Byerley Turk… All 30 patrilineal descendants that coalesce in Herod, born in 1758, whose ancestry in turn traces back to Byerley Turk, carried the Tb-oB1 specific allele 208… We also confirmed Tb-oB1 in eleven horses tracing back to St. Simon, born in 1881. According to stud records, St. Simon was the son of Galopin, born in 1872, who was sired by Vedette, born in 1854. The line should trace back to Eclipse, born in 1764 (Fig. 3) according to stud books. All descendants of St. Simon carry Tb-oB1, undoubtedly the HT of Herod (Fig. 3), and not that of Eclipse (Tb-dW*). Thus, an incorrect paternity assignment must have occurred in this lineage. In a discussion recorded in the early to mid 19th century, one party claimed that instead of Vedette a moderate performer named Delight, born in 1863, a Byerley Turk descendant (Fig. 3b), fathered Galopin; our molecular data support this view.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-42640-w#MOESM10 Greenineugene (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I found that really interesting - digging around I found an article in the Bloodhorse with more detail about Galopin's ancestry and the Galopin article covers the subject - it probably needs noting on the pedigree charts of St. Simon, Donovan etc that modern genetic evidence suggests that Delight was Galopin's sire. Bcp67 (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There's pretty significant evidence that Bend Or wasn't really Bend Or too. Actually, many breed registries have all kinds of obvious discrepancies (a gray born to two non-gray parents or a bay foal born to two chestnut parents are my favorites—genetically impossible). But we have to stay with WP:RS and avoid WP:SYNTH. My suggestion is to note these discrepancies in the article text where there are reliable sources, but use whatever "Official" sources say for the actual pedigree—with the caveat that it doesn't line up with DNA evidence noted before the pedigree rather than after...there's tons of fascinating stuff out there.   Montanabw (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Desormeaux vandalism
How do I ask for a restriction on editing a page? specifically Kent Desormeaux. I seem to be in an edit war with an anonymous user who can't understand that even Equibase can make mistakes, and insists on removing very well sourced info. Driving me crazy! See my page for details if you're interested. Jlvsclrk (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll do it. Request page protection—someone has it in for him and vandalizes that page all the time. For future reference, see WP:RPP. Montanabw (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Cody's Wish
I've just created an article about Cody's Wish. I'm sure there is more that can be elaborated upon in that article, so any help to expand would be appreciated. Thanks! JRHorse (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Abbreviations
Looking at Amounis, I see abbreviations like "f" and "l". What do these mean? I'd like to expand them for clarity or link to a definition somewhere. Is "l" not the same as "lengths"? -- Beland (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Usually these abbreviations are expanded in the title of the table - for distance "f" would mean furlongs and for margins "l" would be lengths. More often they are spelled out completely. Check out in the recently entered article Cody's Wish. However, some authors have taken the liberty to just leave one letter since it is understandable for those who follow horse racing. Sometimes distances are are non-standard and due to space constraints in the table they are abbreviated - such as 1m 3f 218y for a race distance at Goodwood Racecourse in the UK. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Image discussion
There is a discussion at Talk:Thoroughbred which may be of interest to members of this project. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk  18:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Notable Races
Most of the UK horse racing content originates from List_of_British_National_Hunt_races and it's flat (and Irish) equivalents. Recently I saw that all Premier Handicaps except ONE listed on this page had their own pages, so it seemed logical to fill that gap. I therefore created Byrne Group Handicap Chase. This page has now been rejected with reason: "not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG", and the page automatically redirects back to List_of_British_National_Hunt_races. As I have been involved in the creation of many of these race pages I am well aware of the format used and have replicated that. It is therefore certain that there are 100+ pages that have been accepted which differ in no significant way to this one that has been rejected.

Similarly when reading recently about Cheltenham Gold Cup winners of the eighties I became aware that there was no page for the Edward Hanmer Chase (at Haydock) which many used as an early season target on the way to the big race. Convinced of its notability, I therefore researched and created a page: Draft:Edward_Hanmer_Memorial_Chase but this was rejected on grounds of notability and lack of reliable sources. As the sources used were Timeform Annuals and the Racing Post website my personal feeling is that for the topic of British Horse Racing there is nothing more reliable!

I understand that the reviewers have a difficult job and are working hard to maintain the quality and standards of Wikipedia content, but there seems to be a disconnect here between their overall view and that of people working within a specific area who have a deeper knowledge of what is and what isn't both reliable and notable.

I would have no issue with a judgement that the vast majority of Premier Handicaps are not notable and so should not have their own pages. However if a decision has been taken (or simply evolved) to catalog the current state of UK Racing down to Group 3 (Premier Handicap) level then a full picture is surely better than a partial one.

Likewise if we have a format that has been used to successfully document hundreds of races can it not be agreed with reviewers that this is equally appropriate for any new pages that are created. I believe that we have an admirably consistent approach to the layout of these race pages, but over the years some have been flagged with Reviewer warnings (which have never been removed) and now it seems new pages will be rejected completely.

It is certainly counter productive if an Us against Them feeling might exist between contributors and reviewers, so is it possible that guidelines and formats specific to Horse Racing can be fed back to Review teams to ensure that we all have a common goal and pull together not against each other? (JockeyColours (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC))


 * it may or may not help to check our own notability criteria at WP:NHORSERACING and the supplemental page linked there. Truth is, it may not be notable to have a lage for every race, as we generally require races to be (or have once been ) equivalent to Grade I or Group 1 … but sometimes a list can be used for the others… just a thought.  Montanabw (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a waste of time continuing to update any race article which isn't a Grade 1 or Group 1 then. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suspect we have over extended our coverage beyond the scope of notability. It's been fun doing it, and to my knowledge the evolution of these races over time is not covered so well anywhere else, but it doesn't look like we will be able to preserve it at this level.
 * I wonder if we could move away from individual race pages to race categories like "Two mile Premier Handicap hurdles" where we could assemble the content of multiple races? But would such pages be "notable"?
 * On reflection I think it is better to put our own house in order by removing pages that don't satisfy our own notability criteria rather than wait for the content to be defaced by warnings and slowly whittled down by independent reviewers.(JockeyColours (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC))
 * Could we not discuss expanding notability? Or is it fixed in stone? I would trust your verdict if you think it's notable. Lankyant (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

See this post from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals : 96+ horses need a wikiproject attached to it (mostly racehorses !)
Many pages of animals do not have either wikiprojects attached to them or even existant talk pages, on this linked post i listed in my sandbox (since otherwise it would clogged a lot) about 300 such pages, some of which are pertinent to this wikiproject, notably around 96 horses and 1 pony breed. There is probably also a few others pages (hippodromes, etc) that could be pertinent to this project.

Entry of the talk page : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals

Cheers ! Gimly24 (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I think I've done them all, all horse racing related ones added to the WP. Lankyant (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , can you please also assess class and importance when you tag? 99.99999% of these will be, occasionally something is well enough written to be class Cor B.  But anyway, it’s usually real easy.  Montanabw (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a side comment that some of these may not meet our own notability standards (see WP:NHORSERACING and the additional page that supplements it). I recommend  tagging some of them for deletion if they are fluff/vanity pages. For example, one of the dressage horse ones was a 2012 article that I prodded.  Montanabw (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Montana, i added the same assessments to the 8 articles Lankyant missed. And i agree that most should class=stub or start with importance=low. Cheers ! Gimly24 (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've done a few of the British- or Irish-trained horses, all rated either stub or start so far, and all low importance. You can get a list of what needs to be assessed at WP:WikiProject Horse racing - clicking one of the numbers in the table gives you the list. --Bcp67 (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Loose horse
The redirect Loose horse is being discussed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 25. The discussion would greatly benefit from input from editors knowledgeable about horse racing and/or horses more generally. Thryduulf (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * on it. Others can feel free to comment, but I put in my two bits. Montanabw (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 US Hall of Fame
The inductees have been announced and a discussion has been started on whether the National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame page should be updated now or when formally the induction occurs during the Saratoga meeting in August. has updated each individual articles with a reference indicating of the honor bestowed. My feeling is that this is not a WP:CRYSTAL issue. Since events in the future are well documented if there is adequate references and sourcing. Thoughts ?Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say update it now - the induction is a ceremony but the inductees are already members of the Hall of Fame. I took a look at the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame and the 2023 inductees are listed there already - they were announced in December 2022 but will not be inducted formally until July. I agree it's not a CRYSTAL issue, the announcement has already been made. --Bcp67 (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)