Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Task force up

Hey all, I created the much desired and long-awaited Harness racing task force ( pinging White Arabian Filly and Mateusz K). It's very rough and I'm perfectly cool with any changes, but I've added the parameter to the project banner, will get the category done up, and am making an infobox. I'll also add the instructions for adding the infobox module and so on. Any help or changes, just go for it. We all should probably help tag relevant articles. Montanabw^(talk) 18:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I have a userbox here to show participation. Oh, you made one already. I'll start tagging as soon as possible. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Found a duplicated category: Category:American standardbred racehorses and Category:American Standardbred racehorses. The latter has fewer articles but correct capitalization. Can we merge? Montanabw^(talk) 06:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

IMO, merge to correct capitalization. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done. Now, how many hundred more harness racing articles to tag for the task force? ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 22:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Watch your dabs

Just to point out:

There is G1 winning British sprinter named The Tin Man (British horse) as opposed to The Tin Man (horse), and a potential KD derby contender named Mastery (American horse) as opposed to Mastery (horse). I thought there was some "Big Bumper Book of Restricted Names" maintained by the IFHA which stopped this kind of thing. At this rate we'll have Secretariat vs Shergar in a selling plate at Southwell (no insult to Southwell, it's a very friendly little track). Tigerboy1966  15:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The IFHA does have a "Protected Name" program.[1] It is not mandatory. You pay to register the name. I checked, Secretariat & Shergar are protected. Mateusz K (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The winners of certain key races are automatically protected: the BC Classic, Turf, King George, QEII and Arc de triomphe are on the list. Countries can also add three other names per year to take care of the Classics. Leading stallions and broodmares also make the protected list. Even then, I know that an Allez France was registered in Australia much to the consternation of many. Here's the article with the rules for anyone interested. Name protection - the BloodHorse. I guess the point is to never assume and follow the link to double-check. That's how I found out there was already a Mastery out there. Jlvsclrk (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Dabba-dabba do!!! Should we formulate a way to decide which horse is WP:PRIMARY for purposes of who is (horse) and who is (foo horse). For example, we have Rosalind (harness horse) and there was Rosalind (Thoroughbred) who might have been a contender (she was in the news for a year or so but never made it to an article) and a couple others (I think a flat racer and a steeplechaser with the same name; also Cedric (show jumping horse) and Cedric (horse) a race horse ). With the two Cedric's who is more notable? The horse who won eight races or the horse who won an Olympic team gold medal? Sometimes the earliest-living horse or first article created can get the nod, but, should, say young Mastery win the Derby, we'd have an open question... Thoughts? Maybe a cross-post at WPEQ? Montanabw^(talk) 22:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Why not be neutral in deciding the article name? Disambiguation according to year of birth or country of registration would be a start. In the case of harness horse, thoroughbred, steeplechaser that would also be good as well. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Usually we can disambiguate by discipline, though we have done "American horse" and "British horse" where they are both, say, flat track race horses. But in some cases, WP:PRIMARY is appropriate... I suppose just a chat to work out at least a theoretical consensus for now... Montanabw^(talk) 00:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Add winners to list of races?

Here's an idea I've been kicking around in my own mind - adding the latest winner to the list of races for each country, like this;

Month	Race Name	Racecourse	Distance	Age/Sex	Winner
April / May	2,000 Guineas Stakes	Newmarket	1m	3yo c&f	Galileo Gold

I had a quick chat with User:JockeyColours who made a good point about the table maybe getting too wide for phones/tablets. My idea was to have the most recent winner, but it could also work with just the current season winner, with races not yet run left blank. Anyone have any opinions on this? If you think its a terrible idea, feel free to say so! --Bcp67 (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a cool idea. By the way, the table above is showing up correctly on my cell phone screen. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The green line is a bit garish, and if you eliminate the fixed widths, I think that will help. Montanabw^(talk) 08:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to try this with the British flat races for 2017. Any feedback gratefully received! --Bcp67 (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

2017

A Happy New Year to everyone involved in the horse racing project! May the year ahead continue to be rewarding for you all, and thanks to everyone for another excellent year on the project in 2016. --Bcp67 (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Errors page

While editing the Coneygree article I came across a link to it from a page recently created by User:Zafonic which lists errors on horse racing articles. A lot of them are Racing Post reference errors of mine but there is also stuff like categorisation and some more complex things. The page is User:Zafonic/Errors - would it be useful to copy it to a project page, fix the errors and strike them through as done? --Bcp67 (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. You do wonder why Zafonic took the time to create the page instead of just fixing them! Tigerboy1966  08:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I think Zafonic just comes here once or twice a year to update lists rather than do any editing now. I see you have fixed a couple of bits and struck them through on that user page, so I'll do the same. Cheers. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Zafonic is most welcome guest star from the early days. It's like when one of the old Doctors pops up in an episode of Dr Who. I've taken to deleting the rows rather than striking as scrolling up and down the list was getting tiresome. About half the errors are down to me copying & pasting infoboxes & pedigree templates from other articles and not updating the years. Tigerboy1966  20:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Did so much great work to get the race articles up and running, and corrected plenty of my mistakes before I learnt how to use the "preview" button. I think the other half of the errors are down to me typing result references in incorrectly! --Bcp67 (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Talking of "Racing Post reference errors" we are now faced with the situation where practically all of them are broken, as the Racing Post has recently changed the format of its links to individual races. High Chaparral has moved quickly to update the Cite_Racing_Post template that many of us use, but this still means that all existing usages need to be adapted by adding the RP course number and RP course code as additional parameters. e.g. the reference to this year's Queen Mother Champion Chase needs to be changed from 2017 to 2017. I can probably do a bulk change on all pages using a Racing Post section under References (I may get some wrong where the race was held at a different venue in a certain year) but pages such as County Hurdle where the references are distributed through the text, and reproduced via a full URL (without use of Cite_Racing_Post) will be more difficult. Please let me know if you have any suggestions as to how this update can be done as painlessly as possible. I can provide a list of all Racing Post course numbers/codes/names if that helps.(JockeyColours (talk))

Not sure I can think of any painless way to do it myself. When a race comes around in the calendar I usually give it a look over and update anything which needs changing, so I can fairly easily update them one race at a time, but that still leaves a lot of broken links which wouldn't get fixed for nearly a year. Luckily there aren't many races where the URLs aren't gathered together in the Refs section I did think of putting them as an item on each page in the winners table at one time but glad I didn't get anywhere with that now! --Bcp67 (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Just fixed the Park Express Stakes and it didn't take too long to add "|178|curragh" to each ref. What I did notice is that the full two-digit month and day has to be in the reference now. It used to work just by doing "|3|26" but now it has to be "|03|26". --Bcp67 (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The list of RP course numbers and names would be really helpful, thank you. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I have added details of UK, IRE and top French courses to my (talk) page. Hopefully I will get around to updating any old-style RP references this weekend, but the total revamp of the Racing Post site has unfortunately broken quite a few of my horse-racing utility programs!(JockeyColours (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC))

That doesn't sound great, hope you can fix it without too much trouble. Thanks for putting the list of courses on your talk page, that's brilliant. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I've adjusted the template so you now only have to add the racecourse number, not the name. It'll still work if you've already added the name, but with one minor compromise. User-defined labels (eg "87–88" in Challow Novices' Hurdle) will no longer display and should be removed. Zafonic (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Zafonic - have just updated the Cork Stakes on that basis. Makes life a little bit easier. Thanks for sorting it out. --Bcp67 (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks also to JockeyColours for top work in updating race results and also fixing reference errors along the way - great effort! --Bcp67 (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

New website for French black type races

Spotted this in a RP story today - a new website in English covering Flat & jumps black type races in France. Might be useful. French black type Bcp67 (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Race name changes

I just wanted to check with y'all about what should be done when a race name changes. Minor changes (like changing from a Handicap to a Stakes) seem to happen fairly frequently and I usually handle it in just by updating the verbiage - I figure most of know to look for XYZ Handicap if we can't find XYZ States when trying to do a link. But then there's the major changes like when the Norfolk was renamed FrontRunner. There were a lot of these changes with the closure of Hollywood Park for example but I think we've caught up with all of those. Still, they just announced that the Vanity Stakes will be renamed as the Beholder. So, should we should we change the name of the article now or wait until its next running in June? Do we need to give others a heads up before doing the move? (I assume not since the move command will automatically redirect, but I could be wrong about the etiquette.) Regardless of the timing, I can do an ordinary move but the Vanity already has some redirects so maybe some one with the right permissions should take a look. Thanks for listening to my late night babble! Jlvsclrk (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I usually go ahead and change the name quickly if I see an announcement or notice an impending change - although in Britain this happens mostly with sponsored names if the race has no registered title. If it's a change to a registered title, or a race outside Europe which catches my eye, I would probably seek some opinion here or put up a requested move. As you say, the redirect would point readers in the right direction anyway. For sponsored races with registered titles, I usually try to make a redirect for whatever the current title is, e.g. Betfair Exchange Chase today at Newbury, as someone looking at the racecard might not know that it is registered as the Game Spirit Chase. Early morning ramblings! --Bcp67 (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Do a move to the new name. Be sure to leave a redirect. Except: If the name change is only to change a sponsor (Like for the Kentucky Derby), we avoid moving, but note the sponsorship in the first line... it's absurd to move articles every couple of years over sponsorship; it makes sense when they totally rename the race (i.e. Vanity to Beholder Stakes, for example). Montanabw^(talk) 11:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Need project members' thoughts

I went ahead and did an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Casse. The promotional tone of this article has been driving me nuts for quite some time. I’m not sure what criteria we would even use to assess notability, and I’m not sure if it’s more the tone or the topic notability that’s bugging me. (But the tone is REALLY bugging me; it’s a puff piece). But I’ve put it up for deletion to see what others think. Montanabw^(talk) 07:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree. If we did an article on bloodstock agents, we could mention him as an example, but he's not even a particularly famous one as of yet (I'd say picking out a classic winner would be the threshold for noteworthiness. (If you want examples of what I'd call famous bloodstock agents, I'd look at the BBA or BBA Ireland.) OTOH, its an interesting topic and the article is well-sourced, so there's a bit of a keep aspect to it. Jlvsclrk (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Be good if you could vote at the AfD, either way -- weak keep or weak delete…The criteria is notability, not quality… but I don’t have super strong feelings other than that he’s obviously trying to get free advertising…which is annoying Montanabw^(talk) 02:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Man o' War at 100

Is anyone up to giving my changes to Man o' War a copy-edit? I'm still working on the bottom section but I think the background and racing sections are ready for a look-see. Lots of new articles out there to commemorate his 100th, but I've also used the original stories in the New York Times extensively. Would love to get his to a GA. Jlvsclrk (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Gulp: I've put in a Good Article nomination today. Here's hoping it goes well. Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll watchlist the nom page. Might want to ping folks at the WikiCup and GA Cup that you did so, they get points for reviews and usually do a better job than a random drive-by. Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Woohoo! Man o' War meets GA! Jlvsclrk (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I have always loved this horse, and the article is superlative.dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I put up an AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not This Time. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings and the article is nicely done, but not to put too fine a point on it, this colt retired to stud as a 2-year old after only four races. Bottom line is if a GIII win is enough to confer notability, and my take is that it is not. That said, I think that project members should weigh in here to help refine our criteria. My concern is that stud farms are going to start using WP for free advertising of unproven stallions. But we can discuss further at this AfD. Montanabw^(talk) 19:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Borderline I'd say. Only a neck away from the GI win which would have fitted the notability criteria. If he sires multiple G1 winners in the years ahead he'll maybe deserve an article but for me now it's a weak delete. Will add my views to the AfD. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyedit?

Created Girvin. Any eyes welcome to do a copyedit and make any improvements. Montanabw^(talk) 09:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and ( pinging Jlvsclrk do you think it's time that we gave Joe Sharp his own article instead of a redirect to Rosie's? Normally we don't consider it until they actually win a GI, but he is sending a horse to the Derby...or do we wait until he wins a GI and let him be "Mr. Rosie Napravnik" a little while longer? Montanabw^(talk) 00:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

My gut says wait since I don't know that there's all that much to say, beyond being Mr. Rosie Napravnik. If Girvin continues to progress though... Jlvsclrk (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

LOL, gotta suck to be him sometimes. Girvin's quarter crack is a real dilemma for them. Ah... DERBY WEEK! (Want to ping Brudder Andrusha and we all make sure the Derby article is up to par for an WP:ITN post, which we usually do every year? Montanabw^(talk) 16:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Any suggestions on how to divvy things up so we get as much done as possible without getting in each other's way? There's the main article, the horse article (which may well have to be created), the trainer and jockey articles (possibly from scratch), plus minor updates here and there. Jlvsclrk (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, do you want to do your adjectival search and destroy on 2009 Breeders' Cup Classic and 2010 Breeders' Cup Classic. Hard for me to maintain that neutral tone sometimes! Jlvsclrk (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Going back to Girvin, there's a real interesting article on his quarter crack problems and shoeing in general. It's a blog though, so even though the writer obviously knows his stuff and has great photos to illustrate the issue, I'm not sure if its a high enough quality source. Jlvsclrk (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

WIll do. On to the Preakness! Montanabw^(talk) 23:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Stud fees?

Folks, I'm noticing that a various editors are adding current stud fees and stallion rosters to various breeding farm articles. In some cases, they are updating outdated data, and in others, they are creating new lists. My concern is that this is info that becomes dated-- annually -- plus in many ways, it's also free advertising. While I am kind of OK (more or less) with a stallion roster being a part of an article (if properly maintained and including an {{as of}} parameter), even though there are some changes from year to year, the stallions often stay for a reasonable amount of time, and if they do change, they can be moved to a "once stood" column if needed. I'm thinking that stud fees should generally NOT be included -- if they are notable for some reason (i.e. Tapit, American Pharoah) they can be discussed in the article on the individual horse. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 16:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I like seeing the stallion roster - I think one of the weaknesses in some of the article is not enough recognition of the previous stallions. The stud fee at the top end of the market at least is an indicator of success. But as you say, maybe that belongs in the stallion's article. Good idea about the as of marker. Jlvsclrk (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as advertising we already have a sponsor item for a event or race in the userbox so to be concerned about advertising its a bit of a moot point. These sponsors are putting something into the sport so for the year of the event they get sponsorship acknowledgement. At least for sire's stud fees it wont be forever for the term of his activity. Also articles that are not up to date - there are a lot of them around. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

My concern is mostly the outdated part -- we have TEN THOUSAND articles tagged for WPHR... most historic, but still probably hundreds to maintain of currently active stallions. Maybe we can keep just the rosters in the farm articles, as though rosters do change, once the stallion stands there, he's more or less associated with the place, even if he moves later. But stud fees change annually and ... we don't care that much about updating them, obviously... but those who care about the stallions can update the individual articles??? Montanabw^(talk) 23:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Derby contenders

I usually create an article on at least one KD contender before the race but I'm completely flummoxed by the US form this spring so I'm going to do Thunder Snow. Just wanted to check that no-one else had it in sandbox. Tigerboy1966  18:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense to do Thunder Snow because the general opinion is he's as good as the rest but how will he handle quarantine and the dirt at Churchill Downs. As for the rest, yeah, we're all flummoxed over at the handicapping blog I belong to. Can make a case for at least half the horses in the field, and if it keeps raining in Kentucky or if the post position draw is disastrous for the favorites or... Who knows? Of the top 10 in the DRF ranking, four already have articles (Classic Empire, Gormley, Girvin and Practical Joke) and the other six don't yet meet notability. The four who don't have articles yet but are most highly rated are: Irish War Cry, Always Dreaming, McCraken & Gunnevera. I was very high on the Kraken before he got hurt during the prep season so I can work on that one if you guys think its appropriate to proceed. He's only got a G2 and a G3 now though. IWC has two G2s (one of them the Wood), AD has one G1 and Gunnie has 2 G2s and a G3. Or should I perhaps start sandboxing all four and promote if they win? I don't mind doing the work because I love doing the research at this time of year. Jlvsclrk (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If I were to suggest one it would be Always Dreaming as he has a G1 in the bag and looks quite likely to start favorite. Thunder Snow will be fine on dirt but mud would be different: I don't think they have a word for "mud" in Dubai. With so many unknowns and the possibility of a sloppy track you could probably back ten horses and still miss the winner. Tigerboy1966  20:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually the track was a bit muddy when Thunder Snow won the UAE Derby. Tigerboy1966  20:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice article! I've got McCraken sandboxed and ready to go if / when he scores the big win. I'll get working on Always Dreaming next even though I don't see him winning the Derby. It's a Pletcher thing - Pletcher underperforms on the big days, but he'll get AD another G1 or two somewhere/somehow. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Kentucky Oaks tomorrow - I'll volunteer to do the article for the winner since I don't believe any of the fillies have one already. For the Derby, McCraken and Always Dreaming are both sandboxed and ready to promote as soon as they meet notability. Classic season is here, o frabjous day! Jlvsclrk (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

We did have fun anyway (put up articles on my favs, Irish War Cry is at least a G1, Girvin will need to step up to avoid an AfD...though he does reach GNG because of his connections and the coverage he got because of it...). Tigerboy, did you see that "your" horse got to Kentucky and thought he'd landed in a wild west rodeo? Now, I am not surprised to see that happen at the State Fair or something, but it was unusual for the Derby... ah horses. Montanabw^(talk) 23:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

First Saturday in May

Woohoo, its time for the 2000 Guineas and Derby! Who's making the mint juleps? Anyone else buying Kentucky Fried Chicken (brought to you by Yum Brands). Are there any drinks specifically associated with the Guineas? Special foods? Jlvsclrk (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Always Dreaming, didn't I tell you! Gin & tonic and a traditional English McDonalds. Tigerboy1966  23:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The place I saw the Derby didn't serve Mint Juleps! Can you believe it! Had to settle for a Bourbon seven (Basically a 7 and 7 only with a Kentucky bourbon. Montanabw^(talk) 23:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Thoroughbred racehorses - all inclusive?

I notice that Category:Thoroughbred racehorses has a lot (2000+) of horses in it directly, but many (most?, all?) horses are also in a specific thoroughbred family, for example Fastnet Rock (horse) is in both Category:Thoroughbred family 2-f and Category:Thoroughbred racehorses.

To comply with WP:SUBCAT, should Category:Thoroughbred racehorses be marked as {{All included}}? Mitch Ames (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the project has a consensus on diffusing or non-diffusing categories on this one. It takes a lot of time to recategorize 2000 entries. Some will go by nation, some into families, some into both. Family classification is too narrow... in the case of Fastnet Rock (horse), he could be reclassified as an Australian racehorse, so I did. Montanabw^(talk) 10:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a general consensus (WP:SUBCAT) that articles ought not be in child and parent categories, so if there is no consensus for Category:Thoroughbred racehorses to include all such horses directly, any horses that are already sub-categorized under Category:Thoroughbred families should be removed from Category:Thoroughbred racehorses. According to AWB there are currently 1556 pages that are under both Category:Thoroughbred racehorses directly and also under a sub-cat of Category:Thoroughbred families. It would probably take an an hour or two with AWB to remove those duplicates from Category:Thoroughbred racehorses.

If there is consensus that they should all be directly included in Category:Thoroughbred racehorses then {{All included}} should be added to that category. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that we have a lot of horses that would fit into multiple categories and will be "lost" if we only keep them in a few obscure ones... for example, a horse might be categorized as Thoroughbred family X, as an American racehorse, as a male (or female) racehorse, and so on. There may well be a general consensus, but there also is WP:NODEADLINE, and here, I'd rather see a few horses in duplicative categories and diffused into the most suitable ones by people who can examine these articles on a case-by-case basis. Montanabw^(talk) 06:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, what's being said is that if a horse is categorized as Thoroughbred family n-s, there is no reason for it to be in the Thoroughbred racehorses category directly since the one is a subcategory of the other. The proposed fix wouldn't affect the other categories that might be assigned based on country for example. We could then go through any horses that are left in the Thoroughbred racehorses category and stuff them in an appropriate family category instead, since all Thoroughbreds belong to a family by definition of the breed. This reminds me though of a categorization issue I was wondering about: how to properly associate the three foundation sires (Godolphin Arabian, Byerley Turk and Darley Arabian) with the Thoroughbred breed. They themselves were neither racehorses nor Thoroughbreds in the technical sense and have no family. We do have sire line categories for the first two but not for the Darley Arabian, since the latter sire line is so dominant nowadays that its almost redundant information. (I don't know how many Thoroughbred articles there are in total, but only 127 are categorized as Godolphin and 205 as Byerley. The implication is that all the rest are Darley, though some might just not have the appropriate sire line input.) Not a big deal I suppose. Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jlvsclrk: your understanding exactly matches mine. Removing the articles from Category:Thoroughbred racehorses (where they are already in a family subcat) is completely independent of any categorisation by other criteria. If it is important to be able to find all such horses directly in Category:Thoroughbred racehorses, for whatever reason, then that category should be marked as {{All included}}. Currently there are (according to AWB) 4286 articles in Category:Thoroughbred racehorses or subcategories, and 2127 directly in Category:Thoroughbred racehorses, so if you were looking directly in that category to find articles (eg to categorise them by some unrelated criteria) you would only find half of them.

My take is that WP:IAR applies to categories more than anything else around here. There are cases (such as Category:Horses) where it is desirable for everything to be diffused into a subcategory and so {{diffuse category}} is added. Other times, the non-diffusing {{All included}} is very helpful for things like Category:Horse breeds where we want there to be a comprehensive list of breeds and avoid the inevitable duplication that can occur when multiple countries "claim" the same breed (In the case of the Lipizzan, five). But some things are not all-or-nothing; we sometimes just have to say "put 'em in the generic category until we figure out something better to do with 'em." Which is the case here... we have about 10,000 articles tagged for WP horse racing and if the main TB cat has 2000 of them, I'm not surprised. The racing categories are kind of a mess in general and I wish we had "Cat-a-lot" the way they do on Commons. Oh well... Montanabw^(talk) 03:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think IAR applies at all here.

But some things are not all-or-nothing; we sometimes just have to say "put 'em in the generic category until we figure out something better to do with 'em." — This is true, but in this specific case we have figured out something better to do with about 1556 of them - they've been put into a family subcategory (eg Category:Thoroughbred family 2-f) but not removed from the parent Category:Thoroughbred racehorses. Those articles should be removed from the parent. The articles that are in the parent only should be moved to the appropriate subcategory and removed from the parent; presumably that will happen as people get around to doing it. (Or possibly some articles will stay in the parent and no subcat of it because there is no specific applicable subcat. I don't know anything about horse families, but I do not about categorisation.) I'm not proposing to move articles into subcategories myself, because I don't know which subcat they should be in. I am proposing to remove articles from the parent where they are already in an appropriate subcat, because that is relatively easy to do.

I wish we had "Cat-a-lot" ... — WP:AWB will allow relatively quick and easy finding of the duplicates and removal from the parent category. I just want to first verify that the project doesn't want {{All included}} on Category:Thoroughbred racehorses instead. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

We have about 10,000 article tagged for the project and well over 5,000 of them will be horses, so no, we don't want {{All included}}. But please, don't remove articles, either. Most horses will fit in multiple categories, but if you move them out of the main cat into what is actually one of the more techie and obscure categories we have, they will be lost. We will, over time, refine categorization, and in fact, we are -- or, to be precise, Tigerboy1966 is doing so all by his lonesome and the rest of us really suck because we aren't helping him!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 22:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing/Archive 11/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Horse racing.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Horse racing, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Cloud Computing

Anyone working on this? I'll get cracking if not. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I've done the pedigree section, and will add more stuff tomorrow. He is direct a descendant of that peculiarly named Kentucky Oaks winner Alcibiades. Tigerboy1966  23:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

NYT Article

Lovely article today in the Times about American Pharoah's foals and the whole process of raising Thoroughbreds. Encouraging to see an in depth article on horse racing in the US papers. There's some useful bits there about the weaning process and developing the horses for training that might be useful in various articles. Jlvsclrk (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Cool! Will check. Feel free to add as you see fit to horse breeding, foal, etc... Montanabw^(talk) 01:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

RM Epsom Derby

There's a requested move open on Talk:Epsom Derby for anyone who would like to give an opinion. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems like this issue keeps rearing its whatever you want to call it - But I don't think IMO it should be moved. I have given my comments on that talk page. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear **headdesk** Can't we just salt that issue? It is a horse that's been beaten to death, poor thing! Montanabw^(talk) 01:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

AfDs

I've put up a couple of AfDs. Other project members may want to participate to help establish a project consensus, regardless of outcome. I also chose not to AfD new articles on Gunnevera and Afleet Again, though they are, IMHO, on the marginal side. Montanabw^(talk) 01:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heart Ashley
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Jasper

I have to agree with you about the articles that you have raised. I don't understand the motivation of creating such articles and whether the originating author is aware what the guidelines are for minimal qualification. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Brudder Andrusha, I am. The articles reasonably appear to meet WP:NHORSERACING #2 and are sourced such that it appears GNG is met. Were you aware of WP:NHORSERACING #2? Were you aware that its written in such a way to make both these subject at least reasonably fall under the guideline? RonSigPi (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that the articles were bare minimums as stubs and I would hardly call the victories as significant for WP inclusion. That's why I queried your motivation for the stub article. Your response gives me no inclination to change my thoughts that the articles be deleted. However, you do bring up valid points in you next response in the section - It should be more clearer as to what is the qualification and it should be spelled out. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

NHORSERACING is pretty clear, or so I thought ... it's a floor but any topic still must meet WP:GNG. These don't, it's questionable if the races won are themselves significant and citations to results with minimal other coverage doesn't really cut it. Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

So GNG is more important, and "significant coverage" means something beyond routine reporting of a race in a horseracing periodical, because otherwise ever stakes winner would be notable (and TDN even has features for winners of maiden races!) NHORSERACING is a good guideline but that 2nd point might be modified to point to non-routine coverage in the press. There are hundreds (thousands?) of horses with a couple of G2/G3 wins who are NOT notable, and a few without any graded wins who ARE. For example, Ben's Cat meets notability because of his repeat wins and long career, widely covered by the regular press - even though he's never won a significant race. Rapid Redux and Pepper's Pride met notability based on their win streaks, which garnered national attention, even though the wins weren't at the highest level. And then there's Zippy Chippy, who never won at all. Such horses are the ones that I would think the 2nd point in NHORSERACING should be addressing. Jlvsclrk (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

When the current drahmah calms, I think we can do that. The NSPORTS crowd likes to know there is a consensus at the project, so we can play with the details here and then present it there. Maybe we can do so at the talkpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing/Notability, and look at our larger set of guidelines, which may need some refinement too. Montanabw^(talk) 05:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:NHORSERACING

Two articles I created are up for deletion:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heart Ashley
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Jasper

Part of the problem, in my mind, is the criterion "Individuals who have won multiple significant Grade/Group 2 or 3 graded stakes races or the equivalent level in their respective nations" (emphasis added) What does significant mean? I looked in the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing for guidance on the term significant, but couldn't find any. This can be a very high standard or a very low standard - all depends on definition. Another interesting point - jockeys run many races in their careers and horses few. Should more be required of humans that have long careers in the sport, but much less for horses (so the coverage is not disproportionate and in my experience more coverage is dedicated to the horse and not those involved.) In my mind these horses meet GNG anyways, but I think a lot could be cleared up by either defining what significant means, removing the term significant so we are cut and dry on the races, limiting it to multiple Grade II wins without the significant requirement, or some other option. I am not part of the project, so I won't suggest which one, but I do think this should be corrected. Note the concurrent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#WP:NHORSERACING.RonSigPi (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting response and worth debating. For jockeys I think a minimum of at least one Grade/Group 1 win and/or <some number of wins in career> would be adequate for significant. There could be variations depending on locations. Horses would be a topic of interesting discussion and I await what folks in the project think. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

For jockeys, I would say that they should have several "ordinary" Grade/Group 1 wins or at least 1 major Grade/Group 1 (the likes of the Classics, Breeders' Cup, Arc de Triomphe). 1,000 wins is a newsworthy acheivement, but much less so if they're not riding on a major circuit IMO. As for horses, huh, that's a very low standard IMO. There's tons of horses out there who have won a G1 or two but don't have articles (especially if they are sprinters). A "significant" G2 to me would be a race that yo-yos between G1 and G2 (like the Wood Memorial or Blue Grass) or a well promoted new race (thinking Pegasus World Cup which stole its G1 from the Donn). Can't think of any significant G3 races quite frankly. As an aside, I don't know if there's a "Queen's Plate" exception to notability, but it isn't eligible for grading because its restricted to Canadian-breds. Does a Queen's Plate winner have to do anything else to meet notability? Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Jlvsclrk, and Queen's Plate winner clearly meets WP:GNG due to the substantial news coverage of the race, so yes. I think in GIII land, some of the old, historic races have now sunk to that level (often renamed, too...) the Illinois Derby comes to mind as an example. Montanabw^(talk) 22:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

He's misstating the guidelines. Folks, everyone please read WP:NHORSERACING, which we discussed here before it went live. We already have these standards and yes, GI is the base criteria -- the WP:GNG "significant coverage" guideline is to be sure that there is not a random AfD for, as jlvsclrk said, the "yo-yo G1-G2 races" or for otherwise famous horses/people who don't have a G1 win (Russell Baze comes to mind). There were two other horse articles created by this same edior in the came general timeframe, Gunnevera and Afleet Again, which were not AfD'd by me as they may pass due to significant news coverage surrounding each animal, even though they too lack a GI win. This editor is gaming the system across multiple sports topics (he's been doing the same on rodeo articles and I think some boxing articles). He creates stubs, cites only to reports on competition results, and claims that it's "significant" coverage. The NSPORTS guidelines create something of a floor, but the subject still has to meet the general WP:N policy standard. Montanabw^(talk) 22:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, someone else assess

Someone needs to assess Title Contender for notability. Best I don't touch it until I've settled this drama. Montanabw^(talk) 04:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Marginal notability?

Here's another one. In light of working on our notability criteria, what do you think? Notable or not? Gimme Da Lute. Montanabw^(talk) 18:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• borderline. maybe yes because of the California Horse of the Year? Had four straight wins but didn't beat any notable horses in them. I hate researching horses who broke down though. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There's a tendency to emphasize a tragic end, but they are all tragic, not just the big name horses. Kind of like obituaries of people, WP isn't Legacy.com.... sad, but how to handle non-notability with kindness? Montanabw^(talk) 18:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Another breakdown article-- notable?

Grade I winner, but broke down as a three-year-old. Onlyforyou (horse). Keep or AfD? Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 07:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Two Grade II wins actually. Was undefeated in four starts. Borderline, lean keep because of the latter. Needs a lot of work, which would be much better directed at improving articles for unquestionably noteworthy horses. Jlvsclrk (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

2nd AFD

An article for project members to weigh in on, in either direction. Note the 1st AfD in 2008 and comments there too. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thad Ackel (2nd nomination). Montanabw^(talk) 04:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Monmouth

FYI, I'll be away next week and will be at Monmouth Park on the 29th and 30th for the Haskell. Don't know yet which horses will be showing up but plan to take plenty of pics - LMK if there are any ones you're particularly interested in. Also, if McCraken should chance to win, I have a sandboxed article just waiting for him to meet notability.

Well you can put a picture of Girvin now for sure. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

(Doing the happy dance for Girvin and his connections). Do we have a G1 win for McCracken yet? Montanabw^(talk) 18:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Happy for Girvin and yes, I have lots of pics to choose from for his article. Poor McCracken missed getting his G1 by a nose, which also cost me on a whole bunch of bets. I'll get back to work tomorrow - today I'm catching up on sleep! Jlvsclrk (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I think McCraken will breakthrough with a GI if connections keep him in training after this season. So your photo finish image might come in handy one day. ;) Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Photos added for Irish War Cry, Practical Joke and Girvin. I included one of many cute ones I took of Rosie N and Joe Sharp celebrating Girvin's win. Here's hoping McCraken evens the score in the Travers. Jlvsclrk (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Doing happy dance that Jlvsclrk gets to go to these big races with camera in hand...! Montanabw^(talk) 18:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Thoroughbred fatalities

Template:Thoroughbred fatalities has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. (I nominated this to delete) Montanabw^(talk) 18:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist please

Issues at Talk:Glossary of North American horse racing#BRD of interest to this project. Appears we do have to fix some citations, possibly need to consult Wayback for earlier versions. Montanabw^(talk) 17:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at NSPORTS

Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

New article

Grand Slam of Thoroughbred racing. Additional edits welcome. Montanabw^(talk) 21:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomenclature revisited

Im sure this issue has been discussed before but... I am creating an article on Zoffany, the Irish horse who won the Phoenix Stakes in 2010 an gave Frankel supporters the fright of their lives in 2011. There is already an article Zoffany (horse) about the New Jersey-bred horse who raced in England before being repatriated and winning the Hollywood Turf Cup et al. I was wondering about how to deal with the disambiguation. I would be in favour of creating the new aricle at Zoffany (IRE) and moving the existing one to Zoffany (USA). The alternatives would be Zoffany (Irish horse) and Zoffany (American horse). I can't remember what we decided the last time this one came around so let me know what you think. Tigerboy1966  15:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the last time was Kingman (horse) and Kingman (British horse), so the same pattern here would be Zoffany (horse) and Zoffany (Irish horse). I don't mind too much as hatnotes would lead readers to the right article if they came looking for one of the horses. I don't personally go for Z... (IRE) and Z... (USA); although its correct in horse racing terms I'd rather see a more descriptive qualifier in article names. "The lads" must have been a fan of the painter, they had a Johan Zoffany a few years earlier too! --Bcp67 (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we do need to discuss this further because there is a good argument to be made for use of the 3-letter acronyms. In the meantime, I moved the Irish Zoffany's article to Zoffany (Irish-bred horse) because Irish horse is a breed... Montanabw^(talk) 07:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Racecourse or races?

I've restarted work on early British horseracing. Does anyone have a sense of when the "races" stopped being like annual fairs and became more fixed and frequent so that the concept of a "racecourse" made sense. Obviously these days, we understand Ascot Racecourse or Newmarket Racecourse to be locations, but in earlier times they might have been better described as events. Hence, Leith Races rather than Leith Racecourse.

There's a long list of British racecourses which I'd like to shape into something more meaningful, which I think would entail having some sort of cut-off point or threshold above which we can say, "that's a racecourse" and anything else gets listed as "races". Any thoughts? Peaky76 (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If you haven't already read it, there's an old but useful book available on openlibrary that covers topics like this: History of the British Turf by James Whyte from 1840. My sense from a previous speed read is that you could pick one of several dates. Whyte states on p.31 that racing started to thrive around James I, "from which we may safely date the foundation of our current system." But its not until later that we see the introduction of Newmarket (1640), the importation of the three foundation sires (1680s to 1740s), the foundation of the Jockey Club (1750), and the first General Stud Book (1791), so you could certainly pick a later date, or use an alternate rule like its "races" if the space is not principally used for horseracing. (As an aside, there's no point in trying to find a rule in North America as tracks don't even agree if its Race Course or Racecourse and many such as Churchill Downs don't use the term at all). Chapter 7 of History... covers the "Race-courses in Great Britain and Ireland" at that time in case you're interested. Jlvsclrk (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, Whyte is one of the books I'm using. The problem I've found is that it includes places that definitely did become proper racecourses like Ascot and Newmarket, but a lot in the 19th Century (one of the periods I'm looking at) must have still been fairly informal so should probably just be designated races. I might take it on a case by case basis, then, rather than establish a rule. Thanks for responding! Peaky76 (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

One way to settle it is if a permanent racecourse was built, as opposed to just setting up a temporary place in a field or something. Montanabw^(talk) 07:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good point, although for historic courses now closed it's not always easy to tell what, if anything, was built! Peaky76 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Glossaries

When editing, I keep needing a glossary of British horse racing terms to point people to. There's an excellent Glossary of North American horse racing but some of the British peculiarities aren't included. What do people think to a.) A combined "global" horse racing glossary (with indication of region where necessary) or b.) A separate British glossary? It would also be useful to have some betting terminology in there, but I see from this discussion the idea of some combined betting/racing glossary was pooh-poohed before. What do people think? Peaky76 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I've favored a unified glossary for a long time. I think there is adequate overlap. We've mostly done so with the Glossary of equestrian terms, which was a joing US/UK editor venture. I think the barrier has been the need to source as we go (i.e. a lot of work is involved). Maybe the thing to do is either to start a UK sandbox or start adding sources to Glossary of Australian and New Zealand punting where there are terms that are also UK ones and not already in the North America list (or defined differently). Then we could discuss if we wanted a universal merge, or just to move the Au/NZ one to a "Glossary of British English horse racing terms" or something. The problem is that the Oz/NZ glossary is large-- and largely unsourced. I'm in to help if someone wants to take the lead and find some good sources; I can help format and source from online content once the ref is added. Montanabw^(talk) 06:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Montana. That's a good idea. Happy to take the lead if needs be. I'll have a rummage through my racing library and dig out some good sources. Then either add them to the Oz/NZ or start a UK one as you suggest. Watch this space! And if anyone else wants to get involved, do say! Peaky76 (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of United States Trotting Association

The article United States Trotting Association has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable subject and fails to provide and references and is not at all integrated or conncected to other parts of the encyclopedia.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Theprussian (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll see how many refs I can find. It's notable and should have been improved, not prodded. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I deprodded and added two quick refs to books. The argument that the subject is not notable doesn't fly, it's like the Jockey Club for harness horses. I think the editor who tagged is too new to have read WP:Before and I may take that up with them later. I will probably also locate some more refs for the article. Right now I'm exhausted from spending all day yesterday walking and medicating a colicking horse. 😣 White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, definitely seems notable to me. Peaky76 (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

FFS. Who is going on a deletionist spree now? Sheesh! Montanabw^(talk) 05:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

New article, can't believe it didn't already exist

Hi all, just created Bulle Rock. I can't believe there wasn't already an article about him, maybe there is, somewhere. Anyway, jlvsclrk and Tigerboy1966, you (and any other member of the gang here) probably have more access to older source content than I do, so please improve as you see fit. Montanabw^(talk) 05:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Good move. And thanks for clarifying my link on Darley Arabian too. I'll see what sources I can find. Peaky76 (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Breeders' Cup 2017

If no one beats me to it, I'll be doing an article for Forever Unbridled tonight. What a performance in the Distaff! (If you're already working on her, please let me know) Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Forever Unbridled done. The following major winners don't yet have articles: Roy H (Sprint, almost certain to win Eclipse), Good Magic (Juvenile, odds on to win Eclipse) and Talismanic (Turf, for which we always do an article. Another Fabre longshot, if not quite Arcangues). Might also do Mendellsohn – we don't often do articles for Juvenile Turf winners (until they do something at age three), but this one is a sale-topping half to Beholder who is likely being pointed to the Derby so... Anyways, I'm finishing updates on existing articles and will start work on new articles next week. If anyone out there is already working on them, please LMK. Thanks! Jlvsclrk (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll take Mendellsohn. Doing it now. Peaky76 (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Mendelssohn now done but it could definitely do with another eye over it. I'm not so au fait with American racing. Peaky76 (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've done the other major winners. I'd appreciate if someone could take a look at Talismanic as my phrasing may sound odd for a European-based horse. Jlvsclrk (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Made a couple of minor changes to European-ise it but all looking in great shape. Another fine winner for one of the greatest trainers of modern times! --Bcp67 (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

One sentence stub

Lucinda Russell. Looks like it needs some work. Winning the Grand National meets notability. Montanabw^(talk) 04:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)