Talk:Spark (horse)

Sources spluge

The list of resources at the end seems quite a bit too much. If they're useful as sources, they should be used. A few for further reading is good too, but that's just a dump of sources at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Toddst1: They are all being used. This is NOT a "splurge" of sources = just a well referenced article that my experience and 400 Did You Know articles says how it should be done. It has already been approved Good To Go for Did You Know by an Administrator. If you see additional improvements you can make based on your experience of writing up articles, I welcome those improvements. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Toddst1: It turns out that 97% of all the articles I have written up in the last 10 years have become Did You Know articles. My last DYK article was on Carl Edgar Myers = 30,000 characters, with a 0.0% Earwig copyvio reading, and 7200 views on the day when it was featured on the main page.

I don't see your list of Did You Know articles. Do you have any? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No. I don't seek recognition like that. Beyond that, it in no way makes your opinion any more valid than anyone else's. You should work more cooperatively. Labeling clearly good faith edits you don't like as vandalism is not cool. We edit as equals. Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

ad hominem attacks by Doug Caldwell collapsed

@Toddst1: Looking at your list of 178 articles, it shows you have been around as long as I have been. So you know that putting on tags that the article is not properly referenced and sourced correctly and has been approved by a well known administrator for DYK, looks like vandalism to anyone. IF you were a "newbie" that would be a legitimate excuse, but you are NOT a "newbie" with ten years experience and 79,000 edit contributions (30% on articles). Your articles are mostly stubs, but some have a fair amount of sophistication behind them (zero DYK articles). So you should have been able to see this article, along with my list of over 400 Did You Know articles, as a well sourced article with all the references being used properly per Wikipedia Manual of Style. How you can say it has insufficient inline citations is unclear to me as every sentence has an inline reference and many with several inline references. IMHO any administrator would see this as vandalism to stop the DYK process of this article, since you have a vested interest in the associated articles of Belair Stable Museum (Bowie, Maryland) and Belair Mansion (Bowie, Maryland) that you created as stubs, which never became DYKs.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC) @Toddst1: Many of your "articles" are nothing but one sentence that says Such-and-such restaurant is a Michelin starred restaurant in Barcelona, Spain. When an Administrator sees this, all those articles will be speedily deleted as they are NOT notable in any way and therefore are not encyclopedic material. All you did was make a bunch of stubs to try to get your article count up. Use as an example my last article on Dyserth Castle I created as a proper way to write up an article using WP:MoS. I have an idea how this works, since I have 410 articles I have created and 415 416 Did You Know articles. I helped others get their DYK and was then a co-editor is the reason my DYK list is higher than the amount of articles I created.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC) @Toddst1: Many of your other articles are just short stubs consisting of 2 or 3 sentences (none above 1000 characters). These likely will get deleted also, unless you can get them above 1500 characters (a usual minimum). I would suggest to work out an article in your sandbox FIRST as a draft before making it a real article. I can help you on this, if you want. Many of your other articles have copyright violations, and when an administrator sees these then those articles will be deleted. An example is Yardi Systems where you have copied verbatim other's words. Use Earwig's copyvio tool to help you out, so you find these before other editors do or BEFORE an administrator finds them. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC) @Toddst1: A Earwig copyvio goal to shoot for is something under 15%. Here are some of my latest DYKs in reverse numerical order. Benjamin D. Wood Carl Edgar Myers (30,000 characters) Edith Ellen Greenwood (here Boom Social copied from me, otherwise its 0.0%) Mary F. Hoyt I can help you with removing copyvios also, if you wish.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

We can talk about this article or you can continue with your ad hominem attacks. Toddst1 (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears I mistook your somewhat uncommon style of sourcing to be a list of further reading, rather than tying back to the sources above. While it's a valid way to do it and appears to be kosher with WP:MOS it is rather awkward. Is there a reason you don't use the more conventional approach? Toddst1 (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Toddst1: I use the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books, which is the main tool used by the top 20 producers of Did You Know articles for Google Book references. It was User:Dr. Blofeld that gave me this nice little tool some 5 years ago and I have been using it ever since on hundreds of articles.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Doug's sourcing looks perfectly adequate to me, it's conventional to add sfn notes and then sources underneath, right Aymatth2? I suggest you leave Doug alone and let him get on with editing. I strongly smell WP:OWN here Todd, sorry. You might have created the article back in 2008 but Doug is to be applauded for his effort to improve this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

As I said at the ANI discussion that concluded Doug Coldwell's behavior towards me is inappropriate, he is clearly "making great progress on this article". I can't see how you're concluding ownership on my part. That seems to be more than a leap of bad faith. Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• I always use that style, e.g. Shrewsbury Drapers Company#Notes. It is most useful when citing different pages of a given book or report, but looks neater if used for all sources. It has the side-benefit of un-cluttering the edit window text by tucking the source details out of the way at the bottom. Far from being "awkward" or "unconventional", it is the standard referencing style for serious non-fiction books and papers. Experienced editors should aim to give their articles a professional appearance, which takes little effort. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone for the support of the "Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books" and the standard referencing style method. I think now is a good time to put in my two cents worth and create another article using that style and newspaper clipping links.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think you've completely misunderstood just about everything I've said here.
• I've not had any problem with the google books tool. However, I haven't come across too many articles using Harvard citations and I found it awkward. I still do.
• Beyond that, I believe the general consensus is that if an article is already using a reasonably consistent type of inline citations, and you want to change the style (either to or from this type), then you should discuss that change on the article's talk page first. But it's clear you don't really give a care about anyone else's opinion, unless they're agreeing with you. Toddst1 (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Disputed sire

As the article states, the identity of Spark's sire is not clear. I've removed Hamilton's Aleppo from the infobox as it is not clear that is the correct sire. Toddst1 (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I did obtain Spark's pedigree information from a well known online thoroughbred horse database consisting of more than 1.2 million horses from around the world. I just go by reference sources.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

One pedigree database where I got this information for HAMILTONS ALEPPO is here for spark's records. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Can you show me better pedigree records for Spark?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood. Good sources conflict on the identity of the sire as you stated in the article. I had provided one[1] , and you have provided several. That's why the identity is disputed. Toddst1 (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

AllBreedPedigree.com is not a reliable source for pedigree information. It's user-edited. Part of the confusion stems from the fact that there are two (at least) Sparks who were imported into the United States. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

See Thoroughbred Bloodlines where two are listed. As an aside - this horse is NOT an Arabian and shouldn't be listed as such in the infobox. Note also that the dam is disputed - the American Stud Book gives the dam of the Aleppo son as a mare by Bartlett's Childers. The ASB also has the older Spark (by Honeycomb Punch) as the one owned by Lord Baltimore - instead of what Thoroughbred Bloodlines presents ... which is that the younger Spark was the one owned by Baltimore. You really need to consult a lot of works to sort this mess out... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Especially relevant is going to be Fairfax Harrison's Early American Turf Stock vol. 1 p. 36-37 where he discusses the various problems with the ASB entries for Spark and gives yet another pedigree for the horses - he appears to come down on the side that only one was imported into the US - the younger one, and that it is the Aleppo son. This isn't my area of interest so that's about all I can add - but the whole area is a minefield - nothing is ever certain with the early American TB pedigrees. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Is anything EVER simple in the horse world!  ;-) DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

LOL! Nothing is ever simple in the horse world. That said, we can use the most reliable sources to teach the controversy and explain it the best we can. Montanabw^(talk) 00:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, you are the best expert we have on WP for American pedigrees, I think, though I've pinged WP:Horse racing for help. I'd say that we will need your assistance to do the needed cleanup. Montanabw^(talk) 00:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The Herbert cite is in error (easy to do as there is no index). Skinner's 1821 General Stud book lists Ogle importing two different horses named Spark: the Aleppo-sired Spark was bred by the Prince of Wales [2] and the other Ogle-imported Spark [3] imported is of uncertain parentage according to Skinner. He also lists a Spark by Honeycomb Punch but does not mention that this horse was imported by Ogle. Edgar's 1839 stud book ("Sparke") lists him as being by Honeycomb Punch and imported by Ogle [4] in an entry signed in 1776 by a Littlebury Hardiman. As mentioned above, there are two Sparks listed in the American Stud Book v.1 [5] with the sire of 2nd dam of the younger horse sired by the Honeycomb Punch-sired Spark ("Old Spark"). The Aleppo-sired Spark was imported by Benjamin Tasker according to Bruce. Miss Colville is apparently the Wilkes Mare (named after importation) but was bizarrely also bred to Spark (?) in her US produce entry (it could be a typo for Shark not Spark as I found in another source). Froggerlaura ^ribbit 03:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Death

The article appears to be lacking the date of his death. Could those in the know please add this. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Register, American Race-turf" ...

The author of this work is actually "Patrick Edgar". Not "Register, American Race-turf". And this particular work is not very reliable. You REALLY want to be leaning on the websites I put up earlier and Harrison's works, not Edgar and Wallace and Skinner. Edgar/Wallace/Skinner are great for horses that were contemporary with them (1830s-1860s) but they are not really very good at sifting all the information nor did they have all the information. Harrison and the various websites are your more reliable sources here, not newspaper accounts from the 1800s and the early attempts at stud books. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And "Thoroughbred_Record" is actually a journal (named "Thoroughbred Record" without the underscore) that was published for a number of years. And Battell's area of expertise is Morgan horses - not Thoroughbreds. He's not going to be very reliable for this subject either. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I obtained this from the reference you previous used. I removed this source anyway however.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)