Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing/Archive 4

Gainsborough 1918 Derby winner
There are some inaccuracies in this article. Lady Jane Douglas was not the first woman to breed a classic winner, Volodyovski the winner of the 1901 Derby was also bred by a woman and Gainsborough did not win the Epsom Derby he won a war time substitute Derby run at Newmarket and he also won the substitute St Leger known as the September Stakes also run at Newmarket. Headturner (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

American Derby
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Derby

The racing times given indicate that between 1966 and 1976 this race was not run over 1 mile but over a wider distance (f. e. 1 1/8 mile). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.42.121.109 (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ray Hunt
I think Ray Hunt (died on March 12th) may have been involved more in QH than TB racing, but would anyone here like to contribute to his article? --Una Smith (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Almutawakel
Hi All! Sullyman15 here - big fan of horse racing! I have just added a wiki page for Almutawakel. I felt it was good to add it since he was the only winner of the Dubai World Cup to not have a page. I think there are plenty of hits on the internet to justify there being one. If there are any suggestions on how I can improve the article, please let me know. I'll be adding some more related articles in the future and hope that I can make some good contributions to the project. If you would like any help on racing stuff or have any comments please contact me on my "help" page. Sullyman15 (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Advice on an editor sought
In the last few weeks a New Zealand editor (User:Wallie) started making edits to the article on Phar Lap. His edits have been challenged, which has resulted in an edit war and the article has been protected for a few days. The article lead contains the following references to New Zealand - foaled in NZ ( 2 mentions), the precise place of his foaling, the fact that he was a half brother to a NZ horse Nightmarch and the place in NZ where he was purchased. All these mentions in the lead paragraph are to a horse who NEVER raced in New Zealand, but had 50 race starts in Australia and won 36, most of them major races on the Australian turf. Not a mention of any of this is in the article lead. Subsequent to User:Wallie edits to Phar Lap, he has embarked on a campaign of editing Australian horse racing articles to insert the words New Zealand (+ flag icons) into them, and remove or question, any reference to Australia. He has also created and made edits to info boxes using "all caps" for horse names. Is there a Wiki policy on the use of "All Caps" in articles? I am unable at present to check all of his edits and I would appreciate some help and also opinions on the Phar Lap article at Talk:Phar Lap. Thanks. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Capitals are covered under Manual of Style (capital letters). I'll take at look at PL, not sure how much help I can be, I don't know much about the horse, honestly. (My major interest in Thoroughbreds is in how they influenced Quarter Horses...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Champion jockey
I've turned the Champion Jockey article into a dab (from a redirect), as there are (at least) 2 British species of CJ, and we have a further article about an (informal) US CJ. Further, some googling of Wikipedia finds (in tangent mentions) several other CJ awards in other horse racing circuits (non-exhaustive list at Talk:Champion Jockey). Perhaps we should have articles about these other CJ awards, which might in turn help us flesh out our coverage of perhaps neglected but nevertheless notable riders. 87.115.130.38 (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

merge American Classic Races and United States Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing??
These two pages are almost identical and cover the same ground. Plus, nobody under age 80 calls these things "American Classic Races" anyways-- that was a usage that was proposed a number of years back and was never accepted by the public, which calls these races the "Triple Crown". I would also propose that we get rid of this terminology on individual horse pages, such as Omaha (horse) and Secretariat in favor of "Triple Crown Races". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.37.74 (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, they are referred to the Classics quite frequently throughout various newspapers and magazines. The reason they are separate, is that the Triple Crown desination only applies to 1919 and later. The term "Triple Crown" was only coined in the 1930s and it wasn't until 1948 that racing authorities recognized Sir Barton the first TC winner. Handicapper (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Doing the article for Personality (horse), I just came across an example of a Thoroughbred Times reference to "classic" Hirsch Jacobs never had a classic winner. Handicapper (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The term "classics" occasionally gets used (although Daily Racing Form writer Joe Hirsch used that word to describe the Coaching Club American Oaks, and the Breeders' Cup's marquee event is called the "Classic"), but never "American Classic Races". It's always the Triple Crown. As for the fact that the Triple Crown being only coined in the 1930's, it's also retroactive, as it gets applied to Sir Barton's sweep of the series in 1919. The reality is that the Derby wasn't really that important a race anyway until Matt Winn promoted it, so it's probably wrong to be using any particularly grandiose adjective to describe early winners of these three races. But there's no reason to have a page for an, at best, minor term like "American Classic Races" to describe the exact same thing that everyone calls the Triple Crown much more frequently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.37.74 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply re American Classic Races
With all due respect, the issue here appears to be someone's opinion that was not very well researched.
 * Yes, until the Breeders' Cup, the Coaching Club American Oaks, as well as the Kentucky Oaks, were described as American Classics because until the BC races for fillies, they were the pinnacle races for three-year-old fillies. Referring to the "Breeders' Cup Classic" in this discussion is meaningless. However, the claim that the term "classics" is used occassionaly is false. It is all over the internet, newspapers and books including the May 2, 2009 Thoroughbred Times article on Mine That Bird titled Canadian champion wins American classic.

Here are other examples: (Want more? There are hundreds on the Internet alone)
 * May 14, 2008 Bloodhorse.com article - Kentucky Bear's entry in the Preakness, marks Bear Stable's first encounter with an American classic race.


 * February 27, 2008 Bloodhorse.com headed: ''Rags to Riches, who won the 2007 Belmont, is a half-sister to the Japanese owned/trained Casino Drive, who is being pointed to the 2008 American Classic.


 * Dubai Racing writes on June 12, 2007 "The victory by Rags to Riches also marked the first American classic win for trainer Todd Pletcher"


 * Spiletta page with list of all Derby/Preakness/Belmont winners since 1867 titled American Classic Winners

Here, the 1918 race is being referred to as an American Classic:
 * In 1918 the Preakness produced two winners, and it was not a dead heat. The race was run in divisions, the only American classic race to ever be split.


 * Encyclopædia Britannica article on the Belmont Stakes says: "oldest of the three classic American horse races (with the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness")

However, the most prominent is this 700 page book which examines bloodlines from 1914-2002:
 * American Classic Pedigrees by Avalyn Hunter (2003) Eclipse Press ISBN 978-1581500950

In its introduction to American Classic Pedigrees, Eclipse Press says:
 * Winning a Triple Crown race -- the Kentucky Derby, Preakness, and Belmont Stakes -- is the ultimate goal for Thoroughbred owners and breeders. These races are considered "Classics" for their challenging nature and prestige, and only the cream of the horse crop attempt all three. Owners and breeders have long puzzled over the pedigrees of the Classic winners, trying to find the key to the same success.

- Handicapper (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the thing to check out is if Classic doesn't include more than just the Triple Crown. Is it used in the US for any OTHER races than just the Triple Crown? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. The key here is frequency of use. For every time someone uses "American Classic Race", 1000 people must say "Triple Crown Race". And they are synonymous. So why the separate Wikipedia page. According to yahoo, "American Classic Race" gets 2200 hits, and "Triple Crown Race" gets 125,000. That suggests that people are over 60 times more likely to say "Triple Crown Race" than "American Classic Race". And that count is probably overly favorable to "American Classic Race" due to the existence of the Wikipedia page that skews results.
 * 2. Further, indeed, nobody knows what a "classic" is? Is the CCA Oaks a classic? Did it used to be one but isn't now? What about the Breeders' Cup Classic?
 * 3. This term adds NOTHING. All it does is confuse people. And there's no need to use the confusing term when everyone knows the non-confusing term "Triple Crown race" and uses it anyways.
 * 4. I therefore don't understand why the attachment to "American Classic Race". Why use a less common, vague, confusing, duplicative, and unnecessary term and devote a big Wikipedia page to it? Let's just get rid of it.66.92.37.74 (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just create a redirect from "American Classic Races" to "United States Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing". Aubergine (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The merge has been open for three weeks on the article talk page in question, and there seems to be more in favor of merging than not, so I've now closed the merge discussion. There's no reason why you can't continue to use American Classic Races as a term as the reader will automatically reach the content at the Triple Crown page. If you find other races that are Classics, but not in the Triple Crown, it's an easy task to change a redirect to an article and use summary style so that content isn't duplicated. To reiterate, a merger doesn't mean that "American Classic Races" isn't a valid term to use (it just means the content on both pages was the same, and "Triple Crown" is the name the average person would use, per WP:COMMONAME). Hippopotamus (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there was no consensus to change this. Hippopotamus, you should actually consider the wishes of the people who make the substantial contributions to Thoroughbred racing,(just for the record, mine are in excess of 90% of all North American articles) not the unfounded whim of an Anonymous editor who appears to have contributed little to the Project. Further, "Redirects" cost Wikipedia money to operate and should be avoided. Leaving hundreds of them is uncalled for and inconsiderate. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there is no universally accepted interpretation of "Classic races" for the US. There's no doubt that the Triple Crown races are classics, but other races are sometimes considered Classics (for parts of their existence) too. American authorities have long tried to market the Triple Tiara as a TC equivalent for filly classics, but this designation is widely ignored by fans and horsemen (to make matters worse, the TT itself has made a couple of changes to their lineup; and alternative concepts such as KY Oaks - Black-Eyed Susan - Acorn have been pitched too).
 * For the decades pre-1950s the CCA Oaks were commonly accepted to be the "filly classic". Today, the Kentucky Oaks are seen as the primary "Oaks race" of America, but whether you consider them a classic depends on the individual. I would suggest that US Triple Crown is kept as the primary article, while American Classic Races should be a redirect, preferably to Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing.


 * @Handicapper: Nobody questions your substantial contributions to this project, but that doesn't give you any veto rights and shouldn't lead you to treat other editors as subordinates until they have "proven" themselves. Btw, if I remember my days as an active Wikipedian correctly, you weren't above policy changes without consensus yourself (I'm referring to the still-silly Glencoe II change, where disapproving reactions by several editors didn't stop you from implementing a change that wasn't even one of the options discussed).


 * Every single edit costs Wikipedia money to operate, this is hardly a convincing argument against redirects. WP actually encourages (or encouraged, at least) redirects for common abbreviations, misspellings and alternative names.Malc82 (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Breeding suffix
Before this gets too far could I ask you to stop inserting the breeding suffix into the article lede. If you want to make this a racing guideline you should take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing and get a consensus view. Wikipedia is not the Australian Stud Book and is not reqired to follow their rules. I think the suffix will confuse members of the public who do not understand the breeding industry. I have no objection to using the suffix in the pedigree section. I checked out a random sample of 100 racehorse bred in America, Ireland and France and not one had the suffix in the lede. Thanks. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, this is not the ASB, but this is the standard format for the media listing of race fields, breeding and sales catalogues etc, especially in AUS and NZ where it is required that the country of foaling is added as a suffix, after the animal leaves the country of its birth. Cgoodwin (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. From my experience the format varies across the media. There is no point in including the suffix if in the next sentence you repeat that information. It is unnecessarily pedantic, and confusing. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it is far more confusing when editors write things such as: "some of Australia's great sporting icons such as Phar Lap, Tulloch, Bernborough, Kingston Town, Northerly and Makybe Diva" as it appeared in Thoroughbred racing in Australia ignoring the fact that most of these horses bred overseas and without any reference to being imported horses.

Cgoodwin (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, still can't follow your reasoning. Could you please explain in exactly what way it is confusing. Thanks. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite simply "Makybe Diva (GB)" has had her name registered as such and no mention is made of her or the other horses' importation. If you need more refs as to her correct name I can provide plenty. PS, I am Aus would rather see the big cups go to OZ horses but these articles should be correct. Cgoodwin (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I still don't follow. Bob Hope is an iconic American entertainer. Is that confusing?


 * There is need to provide references as to Makybe Diva's correct name. From my experience her correct name is indeed "Makybe Diva". I think you are confused. The Australian Stud Book serves a specific purpose, and as such it has certain conventions. That does not mean they should apply elsewhere. It's okay for you to begin the Makybe Diva article "Makybe Diva(GB)" instead of "Makybe Diva (foaled 1999 in Great Britain)", it's no big deal in my opinion. I just can't see the point of it. The article is equally correct either way. Ernest the Sheep (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed Makybe Diva to the format that has been in use since this project was started. And, after hundreds of horses have had articles created based on that presentation, it is unacceptable for anyone to come along and just change one or two to some new formula they suddenly like. If such change is made, then someones else will justifiably change some other part of the article and we wind up with a mess. There is a reason for uniformity. And, every article has the birth country referenced twice at a minimum: on the introductory birth line if living, in the racebox and in the Category designation. Handicapper (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the registered name of this mare and the suffix constitutes part of that name and has done so since she landed in Australia. See also the 1,930 google hits for same full name.Cgoodwin (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The name of the article is Makybe Diva not Makybe Diva (GB). The country of foaling is clearly stated in the info box. It does not need to be also shown in the info box title. And the recent edit to the info box title of Super Impose will bewilder anyone without a great knowledge of Thoroughbred breeding. I think we should bear in mind that the majority of people who refer to horse racing articles on Wikipedia will be casual enquirers with little knowedge of the breeding side of the racing industry. We should be careful that we do not end up with encyclopedia articles which are slanted to a specialised breeding industry. Incidentally, a google search on "Makybe Diva", without the suffix, produced 89,000 hits. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Horse bio notability
Someone raised the issue on my Talk page but did not give an example.
 * Horses
 * I'm not ragging on it or anything, but do you have a serious explanation as to how you justify the notability of non-famous race horses, some of which seem to have been dead for decades? If these were people then there wouldn't be even close to enough justification to rationalize notability, so I just personally don't see how it works here? I'm not saying this to propose deletion or something, I'm just wondering if you have a response. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Earnings
I am confused by the earnings that have been included for various horses with some having an (equivalent) value posted. Surely this will be misleading in a few years as new horse earnings are realised. It would seem to make more sense to list a horses local earnings as they stood at the time of retirement? What is the consensus agreement from the active members? Cgoodwin (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * there is a template which can be used in addition to the original earnings amount, which automatically updates earnings for some currencies. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the link - Template:Inflation. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion
For the attention of any members of this group, Category:Australian racehorses bred in New Zealand and Category:New Zealand racehorses racing in Australia have been nominated for deletion. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts and cleanup listing
Hi everyone -

I have just set up the templates needed for article alerts and cleanup listings to be created for the Thoroughbred racing WP. These will be available at WikiProject Thoroughbred racing/Cleanup listing and WikiProject Thoroughbred racing/Article alerts when they have been created. This could take several days. They will also be available as links off of the main page. Please feel free to move the templates around on the main page - I just placed them at the bottom so they would be out of the way. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Jump Racing
I'm researching this. I'll give updates when I get info. Mhera (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_racing Look in Australia. Phar Lap was a famous steeplechaser who is famous for his battle with Red Rum in the Grand National Also Makybe Diva is another one worthy of mention for it. Mhera (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Phar Lap was not a steeplechaser. --Smashvilletalk 16:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops! I meant to say 'racehorse'I know Mhera (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ireland?
Is anybody doing anything on racehorses in Ireland? Mhera (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation
As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured Portal Nomination
Hello everyone! I am just leaving a note here to notify anyone who is interested that I have nominated Portal:Horses for Featured Portal status. The nomination page can be found at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Horses. If you have the time, please stop by the portal, and feel free to drop your comments either on the portal talk page or the nomination page. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I have not nominated any articles for deletion
According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing I have nominated a horse article Iza Valentine for deletion. This is wrong, as I have never knowingly nominated any article for deletion. Something is wrong here. Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this. Jusda fax  03:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Cuddy Wifter (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the history of the page, the editor who created the article edit warred to have the deletion template removed. You were the last editor to reinstate the template, so now the Article Alert bot thinks that you were the one who nominated the article for deletion. Not really a big deal, just a bot being a bot. Dana boomer (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

New Category discussion
I created the following new category for insertion in a Thoroughbred biography:
 * Category:American Grade 1 Stakes winners

I'm not enamored with the title so if someone has any suggestions then post it here as I plan to create others such as
 * Category:Australian Group 1 Stakes winners
 * Category:British Group 1 Stakes winners
 * Category:French Group 1 Stakes winners
 * Category:Hong Kong Group 1 Stakes winners
 * Category:Japan Group 1 Stakes winners

14:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you need to include Thoroughbred in the category title to differentiate from Standardbred or other breed types. The word Stakes only applies to American races. Is it necessry or could it be dropped? Also, put the country at the end. How about:


 * Category:Grade 1 Thoroughbred winners in America
 * Category:Group 1 Thoroughbred winners in Australia
 * Category:Group 1 Thoroughbred winners in France
 * etc.

Cuddy Wifter (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OR Category:Thoroughbred Grade 1 winners in America  etc ?
 * Yes. Probably better beginning with the breed. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Stakes races in ANZ are from Group one, group two, group three or listed races. See ASB.Cgoodwin (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * However, inserting "Thoroughbred" in the title is inconsistent with the parent Category: Category:Graded stakes races in the United States etc. Handicapper (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)