Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

American eyes required

I have been trying to expand some stub articles on American racehorses. This is most definitely NOT my area of expertise: anything apart from from the Triple Crown races and the Breeders' Cup might as well be written in Klingon for all the sense it makes to me. Anyway, I would appreciate an American expert to read over the articles and correct any obvious howlers in the following: Monarchos, Dark Star, Commendable & Thunder Gulch.

Camelot

Hi everyone, I found the article Camelot (horse) while doing new page patrol, but I'm not sure whether this particular horse is notable or not. Could anyone pop over and take a look at it? Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the picture needs to go. Apart from any issues with the sourcing it isn't a picture of Camelot- it looks like Cape Blanco. Anyway, precedent, whether I agree with it or not, is that Group One winners are notable. The Racing Post Trophy is one of the three or four most important European races for this age group. The horse is also favourite for the Epsom Derby although I know WP is not a crystal ball. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Pic update- It's Daddy Long Legs, Camelot's stablemate. Removing. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it. I'm happy to go with the precedent, so I won't be nominating this for deletion. Maybe the fact that Group One winners are usually considered notable could go in WP:NSPORTS or WP:OUTCOMES? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The slight problem there is that Group/Grade I means slightly different things in different jurisdictions. I will take a look at what other sports do and see if I can come up with a proposal. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

2011 World Thoroughbred Rankings

The 2011 rankings were released on Tuesday [1]. Could I suggest that if anyone starts work on this they should leave a note here, as we don't want three or four people working on duplicate sandbox articles. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC) ps Apparently there were 135 better horses than The Factor last year, which sounds a little eccentric to me. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Thoroughbred Racing will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in thoroughbred racing history. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move for Black Caviar (horse)

The-Pope and Jenks24 have requested that the article currently named "Black Caviar (horse)" be moved to simply "Black Caviar." The handles "Black caviar" and "Black Caviar" currently redirect to the article on caviar. This is the third move request for this article and the previous two requests have not attracted broad attention. I've posted the listing here to increase visibility and possibly get a broader consensus as to what the readers may want (biased toward TB enthusiasts I know). Froggerlaura (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

American Awards

I have been having a discussion with User:Hialeah Harry about how we should describe the championships ascribed to American thoroughbred before 1936. My view is that awards before this date should be treated as unofficial. I will let Harry put his own views forward before commenting further.  Tigerboy1966  21:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks as though Harry doesn't want to continue the discussion here and it wouldn't be fair to put one side of the argument. The relevant sections of our Talkpages are hereUser talk:Tigerboy1966/Archive 1#Eclipse Awards/American Champions and here User talk:Hialeah Harry#Awards.  Tigerboy1966  10:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

MI Developments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI_Developments is greatly in need of changes as it is incorrect and misleading. After the MEC bankruptcy, MID held these properties temporarily http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/56684/mec-reorganization-plan-approved-by-judge

This first description paragraph is totally incorrect, MID was never a gambling and horse racing company: MI Developments Inc. (NYSE: MIM, TSX: MIM), formerly known as Magna Entertainment Corp., is a gambling and horse racing company in North America with several holdings in Europe and Australia, and is North America's largest thoroughbred racing company, based on revenue and holdings.[2] As of March 5, 2009, the company had entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy.[3]

As you can see on the MI Developments website: http://www.midevelopments.com/, MI Developments Inc. (MID) is a global real estate operating company engaged principally in the acquisition, development, construction, leasing, management and ownership of a predominantly industrial rental portfolio of properties in North America and Europe leased primarily to Magna and its automotive operating units. MID is a full service real estate company with an international portfolio currently comprised of over 100 properties.

http://www.midevelopments.com/uploads/File/IR/AIF2010.pdf MI Developments Inc, Annual Information, Form March 10, 2011 Our Racing and Gaming Business Effective following the close of business on April 30, 2010, as a result of the implementation of the MEC Plan, MID became the owner and operator of horse racetracks and a supplier, via simulcasting, of live horse racing content to the intertrack, off-track and account wagering markets through the transfer of the Transferred MEC Assets to MID. For a more detailed discussion of the MEC Plan, see “Description of Our Racing and Gaming Business — MEC Chapter 11 Filing and Plan of Reorganization”. The Racing and Gaming Business owns and operates four thoroughbred racetracks located in the United States, as well as the simulcast wagering venues at these tracks, which consist of: Santa Anita Park, Golden Gate Fields, Gulfstream Park (which includes a casino with alternative gaming machines) and Portland Meadows. In addition, MID operates: XpressBet®, a United States based national account wagering business; AmTote, a provider of totalisator services to the pari-mutuel industry; and a thoroughbred training centre in Palm Meadows, Florida. MID’s racing and gaming business also includes: a 50% joint venture interest in The Village at Gulfstream Park™, an outdoor shopping and entertainment centre located adjacent to Gulfstream Park; a 50% joint venture interest in HRTV, LLC, which owns Horse Racing TV®, a television network focused on horse

http://www.pimlico.com/race-info/news/stronach-group-acquires-mi-developments-racing-and-gaming-assets MID simply held those assets for a short period of time until June 30, 2011 – Aurora, ON: The Stronach Group today announced that it has acquired the racing and gaming assets formerly held by MI Developments Inc. (MID) (NYSE: MIM) as part of a previously announced reorganization proposal approved by MID shareholders on March 29, 2011.

The Stronach Group is now the owner of all of the assets shown in these sections (MI Developments Inc. today and Owned racetracks and assets) of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI_Developments/

About The Stronach Group: The Stronach Group is a privately-held consortium that owns, operates and manages a number of leading businesses in a wide range of industries, including: Thoroughbred racing and gaming; Thoroughbred horse breeding; agriculture; electric vehicle technologies; and medical technologies. The Stronach Group also owns a number of premier development properties and real estate assets in North America and Europe.

The Stronach Group is a joint venture partner with Magna International Inc. in Magna E-Car Systems, which designs, develops and manufactures hybrid and electric vehicle systems, modules and components, as well as complete hybrid and electric vehicles.

I am willing to assist in the proper reorganization of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI_Developments and building of a Stronach Group Article. Please contact me for a direct route to the true and correct information. Kirk33707 (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Kirk, if you can improve the article then please go ahead, your contributions would be most welcome. I can't speak for other members of the project, but I'm a lot more comfortable writing about sport than business. The key thing to note is wikipedia's policy on reliable sources- WP:RS. Don't remove anything that is backed by reilable sources and don't add anything that isn't. Remember that a company's own website is not usually a good source, as it is too closely associated with the subject to be neutral. Good luck.  Tigerboy1966  19:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Racing WP expand???

Hi gang, I was thinking (always dangerous). We have a bunch of harness racing articles and some on Quarter Horse racing. But all of those just get the generic WPEQ tag, presumably because they aren't about Thoroughbreds. Here's my question: Should these articles be put into a horse racing project? If so, would it make more sense to expand this project from just Thoroughbreds to horse racing in general, or should we do something different? My thinking is that an expansion of this one would be best, say "WikiProject horse racing" or something. It would be simple to rename the project and we can probably find someone to transclude all existing work automatically. To create a "wikiproject harness racing" would leave out quarter horses, and I am not sure if non-flat racing stuff like steeplechasing is already within the scope of this project or not... Anyway, I don't have real strong emotion about the issue, just having a burst of anal-retentiveness, so thoughts??? Montanabw^(talk) 23:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've think that merging the racing articles would be a good idea. Steeplechase Thoroughbreds are covered by the project already, but harness racing and racing QHs get left out. If the number of articles grows too large to manage, then the project might have to be split into separate sections. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 00:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WPEQ has 3000 articles, looks like this one has over 7000, but most are horse "biographies" so that's pretty straightforward. I only see a couple dozen harness racing articles and mostly horse biographies in QH land. Montanabw^(talk) 06:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable idea to me to get all the subjects covered by "horse racing" under the same banner and hopefully see what the members of each project can bring to coverage of the other disciplines.--Bcp67 (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see some advantages. Synchronised, Niatross, Ourasi, Brave Inca, Tristan and Go Man Go all in the same project makes sense, as all were horses notable for getting to one point to another in the shortest possible time. I suppose there is an anomaly in that we (Tb Racing) currently include jumpers, not all of whom are Tb (for instance Hors La Loi III). I note that some Quarter Horses are not racehorses as such, but are notable for their achievements in the show ring. Not sure how we would deal with that. Not sure if I would want to get involved in the whole hands/inches/centimetres controversy which has bedevilled WPEQ of late.  Tigerboy1966  14:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the people doing most of the QH articles (one person, really, Ealdgyth) could make the call if the individual animal was a race horse or not. (Have no fear, keep using hands, by the way! That battle is dead and the horse people won!) On other articles, there are already several that have dual tags, so I'm not too concerned. My main though would be if someone wanted to argue that we should put in breeds like the Icelandic horse because sometime they race them... =:-O But maybe that's OK too... dunno Montanabw^(talk) 01:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

and there's that Japanese sport which involves enormous heavy horses pulling sleds... Tigerboy1966  22:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Racing Post paywall

Just a heads-up to let you know that the Racing Post has moved some of its content to its "Members' Club" section. The vast majority of the site is still free (and a brilliant source), but there may be a few dead links cropping as a result of the change.  Tigerboy1966  21:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Came across this today looking for a results search - the facility to search for a race by its name / venue / dates has now gone behind the paywall, which can be a bit frustrating.--Bcp67 (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

My problem was with the breeding section. It used to be easy to check on a horse's siblings, now you have to work around it. Still do-able though. Hope it won't stop your regular updates on race winners, we'd be stuck otherwise.  Tigerboy1966  19:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A Job need doing

Dear all. I have a project for you. I want to round up all the Thoroughbred racehorse article that don't have a Tb racing banner on the talkpage and get them added to the project. I also think that we should try to ensure that they all have an infobox. Recently a user named Barbiehohoho has created a LOT of articles on Hong Kong Racehorses. This is great as the coverage of East Asian racing on English Language Wikipedia is very weak (btw I got into editing by doing some improvements on the Tenno Sho article, so this is close to my heart). However, a lot of the articles are not of the standard we are used to and need some help- infoboxes would be a start. I've picked off one or two of the low-hanging fruit already- you can't resist a horse called Ambitious Dragon, can you?.  Tigerboy1966  19:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Commentator

Does anyone know the name of the American commentator who called the 1985 Breeders' Cup Turf.

"They're duelling to the finish. Pebbles is game and determined, Strawberry Road driving hard, they're running out of ground, England's SUPERfilly, Pebbles, has WON IT!"  Tigerboy1966  16:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think it was Tom Durkin. He was the main announcer for most of the early Breeders Cups. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 17:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It does sound like Tom Durkin. The clip (horrible quality) is here [2]. For English racing fans this is the equivalent of "They think it's all over, it is now, it's four". You probably have to be English to get that reference.  Tigerboy1966  23:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the memory. There's even a Wikipedia article They think it's all over. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Harness Racing too?

I'm wondering if the project also looks after harness racing articles. The Category_talk:People_in_harness_racing page says it comes within the scope of this project. I just created a article for driver Catello Manzi who's the 3rd winningest driver in harness history. Should the Manzi talk page also contain the Thoroughbred racing tag?

Yes I know the difference between SB and TB. My father owned standardbreds when I was growing up. I will sometimes work on the few harness racing wikipedia articles....William 17:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

At the moment Harness Racing (and Quarter-horse racing) is under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine, but If you look a bit higher up the page you can see there are proposals for a unified Horse Racing project. There seems to be a general feeling that it would be a good idea, but I don't know how you would go about renaming the project. Tigerboy1966  21:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd favor unification; the other racing articles really need not to be lumped in with the generic horseshoes and manure when they could be under a more specific project. Can't be that difficult to do a rename to just "WikiProject horse racing" would it??? Montanabw^(talk) 20:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well the mainspace signage has been changed but I am having problems converting all our taggage to Horse racing especially the Assessment page which is incorporated for the ratings in all the old TB tags. I can't rename categories which is causing a problem in the assessment pages. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 04:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to do it, but there is a way to transclude those -- it's why we can tag WikiProject Equine pages as "WPEQ" and the whole template goes on. Maybe look in the page history of the WPEQ template to see who did the syntax and then ask them to help again? Montanabw^(talk) 02:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

All WikiProjects are listed at Project Index. It would seem to be necessary to change the "Thoroughbred racing" project title to "Horse racing" but I don't see any way to do this. Perhaps making a request to do the change on the Editorial Team discussion pagemay be the answer.Cuddy Wifter (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we ask Ealdgyth about this? She knows everything about everything. Tigerboy1966  18:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know nothing about categories and templates! (Said in the same tone as Mammy used in Gone with the Wind...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well fiddle-de-dee.  Tigerboy1966  16:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

She'd be very helpful! In the meantime, I moved some of the stuff redlinked on the project page so it's now properly named and the links are blue, or will be soon. Montanabw^(talk) 20:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Follow ups: Here's what I didn't touch for fear of fouling it up: Template:Infobox thoroughbred racehorse. Though I could move the /doc subpage to it, I didn't for fear of screwing up more things. Montanabw^(talk) 20:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically the categories are specified in the project banner template itself, if my memory serves me. I'll take a peek. Rich Farmbrough, 20:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Cats done. I'm giving the talk pages a nudge by replacing the banner. Rich Farmbrough, 22:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

Thanks Rich, I pretty much tried to fix everything, took a whack at transclusion, though not everything was quite right, so I left panicked help requests on the pages of a couple people who seem to understand this syntax. Just make it go! Montanabw^(talk) 23:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich, we seem to still have redlinks in places like Category:GA-Class Thoroughbred racing articles in the assessment boxes, how do we make those go away? Montanabw^(talk) 23:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes they will go away in time. There was some futzing around going on with the templates. Like I say I'm giving the talk pages a kick up the proverbial, by replacing the banner, which is a good thing anyway, that should speed it up. There's about 8 categories that will need deleting later, but if we miss them, they should get swept up by normal processes. Rich Farmbrough, 23:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC).(Using some automation)

I think I manually fixed some stuff. Chip and Redrose are mad at me for my screwups, though. Can you tell them you're on it and helping? Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I've seen a number of unnecessary edits, some causing damage. To rename a template, it's merely necessary to move it. If the template is move protected, list it at WP:RM. It's not necessary to replace all the talk page banners: the job queue should take care of that in a few hours. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I should have taken Ealdgyth's approach, but the project might have languished for weeks. Boy, to go in and screw up everything sure brought on the people who know the system and got it fixed quickly! I initially did try to redirect, but it didn't look right on the talk pages, but the transclusion did, so what was up with that? As usual, the WP guidelines are useless without some real human help. This is what you get when someone tries to follow the directions...All I know is that we got 'er done, and thanks to all of you who helped, however frustrated you were at me. Montanabw^(talk) 17:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Inbreeding & Pedigrees

I have always used the term "inbreeding" when an ancestor appears more than once in the first four generations of a horse's pedigree. Recently I have seen it argued that the correct term should be "linebreeding". I'm not sure I see the distinction and the wikipedia article isn't much help. I would like to get a consensus on the correct terminology before the Epsom Derby as one of the leading contenders in "inlinebred" to an almost Habsburgian degree.[3]  Tigerboy1966  18:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

the quintisential reply to the difference between "linebreeding" and "inbreeding" is... (and I'm quoting someone ... either Hank Weiscamp or one of the Kleburg's of the King Ranch) "it's linebreeding when it works and inbreeding when it doesn't". Ealdgyth - Talk 18:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume that the ancestor in question is Northern Dancer... with 0 of his descendants having Wikipedia articles (see Category:Northern Dancer bloodline), the possibility of linebreeding in current 3-y-o horses must be fairly high. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Linebreeding is mating of individuals at least one generation removed from a common ancestor (such as I'll Have Another) while true inbreeding (often called "close breeding") is mating of closely related individuals (father/daughter, brother/sister). The best example of a truly inbred horse I can think of is Ultimus, who was a product of two horses sired by Domino [4]. Linebreeding is a form of inbreeding, but not to the extreme as the term "inbreeding" is often meant to imply. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 00:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, while "linebreeding" probably, technically, IS a form of inbreeding, it's a lot less loaded a term, lacking the connotations of genetic weakness or careless breeding that "inbreeding" implies. One of those places where a term of art may not be the most scientifically precise, but is the most politically wise. I see both sides, but probably best to use "linebred" for successful outcomes, though a term like inbreeding coefficient could be used for a precise calculation (like how many lines to Northern Dancer that Eight Belles had in an assessment if that contributed to her breakdown on the track or not...) Montanabw^(talk) 01:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points to bear in mind. I would think that "inbreeding" is a much more common and accessible term for the general reader (the wholly unscientific google test suggests that Norther Dancer + inbreeding yields 10x as many results as Norther Dancer + linebreeding). Also "linebreeding" may be quite popular in the USA, but I haven't seen it used much in European sources. I don't know about Aus/NZ usage. RedRose makes a fair point- ALL TBs come from a limited gene-pool; that's why I simplify by sticking to examples within the 4 generation pedigree used in articles. FroggerLaura makes a point about how the term is used by some breeders, but it is certainly not a consistently applied rule: you can find plenty of references to "5x5 inbreeding". My view is that linebreeding is an unnecessary euphemism.  Tigerboy1966  07:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. One person's "euphemism" is another person's way to wisely avoid a lawsuit for defamation! (grin). Sort of like the big spat Malleus started when he called an admin a "cu-t" -- a term that apparently is not terribly offensive in the UK, but is EXTREMELY offensive in the USA, especially if used against a woman. I can see how a term such as "5x5 inbreeding" is a term of art, whereas "inbred five times" would be viewed as a slap. As for Northern Dancer, there IS a major concern and debate if there is, in fact too much inbreeding to him, which is arguably contributing to the too-high rate of lameness and breakdowns in American racehorses. So, I guess any refs to inbreeding to Northern Dancer (or really, any other horse) are sort of meaningless unless we wikilink to some article that discusses that specific controversy over whether this is a good or a bad thing. Montanabw^(talk) 19:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned, it's linebreeding if it works and inbreeding if it doesn't, however strange that may be. Thus, it seems more fitting for a horse to be considered "linebred" to Northern Dancer. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Anybody care to review Equine drug testing?

Anybody care to review Equine drug testing?

-- 186.221.136.197 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Done, and added some hopefully helpful comments on the talkpage.  Tigerboy1966  18:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for SP bookmaking

An article that users here have been involved in editing, SP bookmaking, has been proposed for a merge with Starting price. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate in the discussion Talk:SP bookmaking. Hack (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

O'Brien junior

I think we could do with an article on Joseph O'Brien (Seamie Heffernan and Kevin Manning are other clear gaps). I was wondering what we should call him. The options would be Joseph P. O'Brien or Joseph O'Brien (jockey). I would favour the latter, but would like to know what you think. Tigerboy1966  08:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Joseph O'Brien (jockey) for me - fits with WP:NCPDAB - I've never been keen on the "Ryan L. Moore" type of naming convention.--Bcp67 (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually Heffernan is another debate - would you go with Seamus or Seamie? The latter I guess as that is what he is generally known as?--Bcp67 (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok w/me to add the disambig parens, if the name is already a dab. Put the full legal name in there, though. Bcp, probably use legal name but add a redirect to the nickname and then go with " Seamus "Seamie" Heffernan in the opening sentence, IMHO. Unless he is so well known by the nickname that it would be ridiculous to do anything else (for example Red Pollard). Montanabw^(talk) 21:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I thought. Joseph O'Brien (jockey) sounds fine, although it is probably going to be Joseph O'Brien (trainer) in a few years. As for Seamie Heffernan, no-one ever calls him "Seamus" although it is presumably his given name. I have been running into brick walls with research as to his pre-racing career. He was born in Kildare, but before he entered his apprenticeship with Jim Bolger, I can't find anything. Birth, schooling etc??? Very annoying as I am a massive fan.  Tigerboy1966  13:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Joseph O'Brien (jump jockey) more like, given his height - unless he's going to embark on a Piggott-style wasting lifestyle! Turns out that Seamie Heffernan is actually "James Anthony Heffernan", so Seamie Heffernan the article will be. I've come across the QIPCO British Champions Series website which is a good resource for info on jockeys and trainers and bang up-to-date too; [5]. Click on The Stars and you get through to the jockeys and trainers. Seamie is on the jockeys page 2, turns out he was born in Kilkenny but there isn't much info about his pre-Bolger days. I was going to start an article this evening but don't let me stand in your way if you'd like to get one going. --Bcp67 (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work on J'OB, especially the numerous links. I suspect he will go into training. Fair play to the lad, if I was 18 and had connections like that I shudder to think what I would be doing. You are welcome to start the Seamie article, as I'm not too good on humans. You might want to use the infobox I used for Charlie Smirke. I am on a nostalgia trip at the moment, expanding Sea Pigeon, Dancing Brave etc.  Tigerboy1966  18:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Two great champions there! The Heffernan article is in place, still needs a bit of work and plenty to be done on articles linking into it, but it's a start.--Bcp67 (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Like the Heffernan article. I may be responsible for most of the "Seamus Heffernan" mentions, as that's what I always assumed his "real" name was. Tigerboy1966  20:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I did too - to the point where I've changed Seamie to Seamus in the past - could kick myself now!--Bcp67 (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Lombo Pocket Watch

Problematic article. Some people have put huge amounts of time and effort into this article and I really enjoyed reading it but there is far too much unreferenced and POV material. As someone who routinely produces hugely over-long and ridiculously over-detailed articles on racehorses that about three people in the world have ever heard of or care about, I am hardly the one to point the finger, but I do think that this article needs drastic pruning. I'll give it a month or so before I get the secateurs out. Have already posted on article talk page.  Tigerboy1966  14:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm too scared to touch it! =:-O It's yours, all yours, me laddie... Montanabw^(talk) 21:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

doing my best. I feel like an American Quarter Horse specialist trying to edit an article on Desert Orchid. Did he win? was it a good race? how easily did he win? were there excuses if he didn't? etc.  Tigerboy1966  12:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have cut it down by a third. A bit like pruning a rose-bush. Tigerboy1966  13:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

AfD of Parth (horse)

There's a rather strange-looking AfD of Parth (horse) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parth (horse). Some expert attention would be appreciated. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look. If it's the horse I think it is there shouldn't be too much trouble establishing notability. Tigerboy1966  10:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The article was nominated for deletion not because of lack of notability but rather for "misinformation". It might be a spurious nomination, but just in case not, it might help to check the article for factual errors. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have expanded the article, added refs and checked for "misinformation". Nothing wrong with the article that I could see. The behaviour of the nominator does seem very odd (a new editor's first contribution is to blank an article on an almost forgotten racehorse and then put it up for deletion) and I have my suspicions, but we must AGF: I used to spend lot of time on AfD but may be a bit out of practice. Please give me a shout if you see anything similar/suspicious.  Tigerboy1966  18:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Silky Sullivan alert

Obviously a very much loved horse, but the article as it stands is nothing like an encyclopedia article. It needs to be knocked into shape and properly referenced. Amongst the masses of pov I think there's a GA struggling to emerge here. I'm posting this here as I don't want anyone to get annoyed if I get the pruning shears out in a week or so. I have already posted my intentions on the article talk page.  Tigerboy1966  14:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

French Horse Racing Hall of Fame

The only reference on this page is broken/dead. Can't find any alternatives. Most on-line mentions refer to the WP article or mirrors. Can anyone help? Tigerboy1966  06:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried fr. wiki? Or ask Tsaag Varlen (sp?), who haunts WPEQ and works on the French horse breed articles. Montanabw^(talk) 23:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for advice. Can't find anything on fr wiki. Does seem odd that a Hall of Fame which was "erected in 1899, but burned down in 1914" and "was rebuilt in 1919" was established by France Galop, an organisation which came into existence in 1995. Tigerboy1966  22:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Pedigree Query Fun

Here's one for those of us (like me) who are tempted to rely on PQ when we can't find anything better.

Remember Honor Bright, the Irish colt who won the Triple Crown before breaking his leg in 2008?[6] Or how about Little Ebony, the bad-tempered black filly who won the Withers Stakes and ran second to Honor Bright in the Belmont?[7] No? Pedigree Query does. Tigerboy1966  22:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, for the pedigrees I just use Equineline now since they made the service free. Pedigree Query has way too many errors or obvious hoaxes to be taken seriously. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 22:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Cgoodwin warned about Pedigree Query about 18 months ago in this comment on Reliable sources Cuddy Wifter (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nasal strips

Can't recall the article where the discussion of nasal strips appeared, but a recent article on the topic for those interested: http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=20231 Montanabw^(talk) 02:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

WP Horse Racing in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Horse Racing for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Just wondering would it be possible to create specific infoboxes for Jockeys + Horse trainers.It would add to the articles Finnegas (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Don't be surprised if they end up at WP:TFD pretty quickly - there are people there with an absolute hatred of infoboxes (particularly new ones) that they consider to be "redundant".

Instead, consider whether an existing infobox - such as {{Infobox sportsperson}} - might already cover your needs. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox horseracing personality works well for jockeys. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 16:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a good template for this, and best of all, we have it all ready to go! Montanabw^(talk) 18:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Article on request

I think we should have Shergar Cup, the only jockey competition in UK. It is notable for UK and worldwide horseracing fans. --Horsemeister (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I see it as a novelty competition for teams of jockeys, which appear to vary each year. Certainly not notable. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

As an uninvolved Yankee, want to post a web cite or two so the rest of us have a clue? We have articles on things as stupid as mutton busting, so... ?? Montanabw^(talk) 19:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It gets a mention at Shergar#Legacy, otherwise just search for Shergar Cup. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As Cuddy Wifter says, it's a novelty competition, designed, I always thought, to liven up one of the most boring British racing weekends of the year, but it does receive significant coverage [8]. It is therefore viable as a topic for an article. Tigerboy1966  07:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Same above, the media outside UK may concern their local jockey performance. In hence, World Super Jockey's Series in Japan and International Jockeys' Championship in Hong Kong also notable in the criteria. --Horsemeister (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess I don't have strong feelings on the issue, WP:NOTABILITY is a pretty low hurdle, as a rule. I mean, there is an article on the Testicle Festival, after all ;-P Montanabw^(talk) 20:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I wondered where you find such weird articles, but noticed a Testicle Festival at Missoula, Montana. Perhaps some local knowledge? Cuddy Wifter (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not firsthand, thank God! But let's just say that they advertise heavily along the I-90 corridor and there is extensive news coverage! Among those of us in the western half of the state, it's a weekend NOT to drive to Missoula! =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 22:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

French Classic Races

Can someone else take a look at this article? The definition offered appears to be an invention by a WP editor. I can't find any independent sources. The term isn't used much and when it is it tends to include the "Poule" races, not the Arc... but you may know differently. Tigerboy1966  09:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Also I have just nominated French Horse Racing Hall of Fame for deletion on the grounds that it does not exist.  Tigerboy1966  09:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I found an updated link in English for France Galop, may want to do some digging around there. Seems logical that they'd have some set of "the most important" races and some way of honoring the people of great accomplishment. Given that we would like to do a better job of worldwide coverage of horse racing, this one seems to me better off fixing or renaming than deleting, if possible, JMO. See: http://www.france-galop.com/France-Galop-courses-hippiqu.1+M52087573ab0.0.html Montanabw^(talk) 22:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that the Hall of Fame article is dead as disco. User:Froggerlaura and I spent a lot of time trying to track this thing down and it just doesn't exist. There is some hope for French Classic Races as the term is used now and then; the problem is that WP is the only place I can find the precise list of "Classics" given in the article. France Galop puts the four races on the same page, but doesn't call them Classics, and includes the Grand Steeplechase de Paris and the "International Jumping Weekend" in a list of six big events.[9] In Britain the term is sometimes used for the Poule d'Essai des Pouliches, Poule d'Essai des Poulains, Prix du Jockey Club, Prix de Diane and (formerly) the Prix Royal-Oak, as these are seen as the French equivalents of the British Classic Races.  Tigerboy1966  22:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well then, heck, we can ALWAYS trust the British to explain the French, right?  :-D Montanabw^(talk) 22:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

We've been knocking seven bells out of each other for a thousand years, OF COURSE we understand each other! Tigerboy1966  22:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The closest thing I can come up with with "France" and "Classics" on the same page is from Ken McLean's book [10] which lists the same races as Tigerboy. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 04:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Individual pages on the france-galop [11] suggest that six races can be regarded as French classics: the two "Poules", Jockey Club, Diane, Grand Prix and Royal-Oak (up to 1979). There is probably enough evidence for a rewritten article, but the term should be used with care. It's not the same as a term like "British Classic Race" or "U.S. Triple Crown Race" where the meaning is commonly used and clearly understood (even those terms become dubious when applied anachronistically, but that's another bag of oats). By the way, does anyone know why the French call their Guineas races "chicken tests".  Tigerboy1966  06:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article with proper references. I still don't like it (and the table looks rubbish), but it's a decent stub. I still think that the concept is already covered in the very well-written articles (mainly created by User:Zafonic) on the individual races.  Tigerboy1966  22:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Good cleanup. Fixing, redirecting, merging, renaming and such always tops deletion whenever possible! (I've also noticed that articles that get deleted are often re-added without those of us who care realizing it, another good reason to fix in some fashion) Montanabw^(talk) 18:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Duke of Edinburgh Stakes

This was prodded as "Not notable". A google search finds various stats for it on web sites dedicated to this sport, but I'm not sure if that's enough. I've seen it mentioned in the Sea Pigeon article. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Its notable enough, being a Royal Ascot race and there would be plenty of coverage, e.g. Racing Post results. The article is terrible though and would need expanded if it is being kept. I'd be inclined to let it go this time. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally its not the same as the Sea Pigeon race, which was a 2yo event. The modern Duke of Edinburgh Stakes is a 1m4f race which was known as the Bessborough Stakes until fairly recently - probably until the early 2000s. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. the main problem is that it is a one-sentence stub. I think that if enough content can be added to show notability, then the tag can just be tossed. Montanabw^(talk) 21:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The race was won by a pretty good horse called Blueprint, owned by the Queen in 1999.[12] There's a brief history of the race here. [13]  Tigerboy1966  21:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not on the List of British flat horse races. Isn't this the standard for notable races? Is every race run at Ascot notable? Cuddy Wifter (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's important enough for several recent winners to have been trained by Mark Johnston. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Since when was the notability of a race decided by which trainers enter horses in it. The race is an unexceptional handicap, of which there are many thousands around the world. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Just added infobox and first sentence of a lede. Just to open another can of worms. I've noticed that a lot of the articles on individual races start by saying that they are races for Thoroughbreds. They are not. It's just that they are nearly always contested by Thoroughbreds.  Tigerboy1966  23:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

added history, recent winners, references, removed prod.  Tigerboy1966  06:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Good job! By the way, I've noticed that the same editor created a similar microstub on Wolferton Handicap. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Now expanded into a longer article --Bcp67 (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Notability of races

I'm picking up Cuddy Wifter's point about race notability. I don't think the list of races itself should confer notability, it's more the other way around - a created race article gets listed on the list of races. Unquestionably all Flat pattern races are notable and ought to have an article. It's when we get into the "other races" it gets a bit more tricky. Some of the handicaps listed are long established and notable enough (e.g. the Stewards' Cup or the Cambridgeshire) but no more special than many others. I think its reasonable that all races at Royal Ascot should have an article (similar to the Cheltenham festival races, although some of those are of no great merit at all!) but where do we go beyond that? Value doesn't confer notability - some quite ordinary races have plenty of prize money but nothing else special about them. Anyone care to chip in any ideas? --Bcp67 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that lists are for "write the article first, THEN add it to the list." Potential article ideas should come here, or maybe on the list talk page. I'm not sure if we have a standard for US Races, but is there an equivalent to our "Graded stakes race" concept? Looks like we have articles on most of these, so something akin to that would be a criteria for notability; I'd hesitate to say all races at a given day, track, or meet are inherently significant or notable --day or i.e. On the same day as the Belmont Stakes, there IS an undercard, but that doesn't mean all races that day are notable. Conversely, the Breeder's Cup is a series of championship races that are each individually notable. So what is a parallel setup in the UK? Montanabw^(talk) 21:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The equivalent to the North American Graded Stakes are European Pattern Races, classed as Group One, Two and Three - I think Group One and Grade One races are regarded as exactly equivalent. No handicaps are included in the pattern. Below that are Listed races (can include handicaps) and a number of handicap races, some of which date back to the 19th century. I believe we have an article for nearly all of the European pattern races, and certainly all the ones run in Great Britain. Point taken re all races at a particular meeting not necessarily being notable, although Royal Ascot probably comes the closest in British flat racing - the racing there is of an exceptionally high standard although by no means all are championship races. --Bcp67 (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting issue. My feeling that a race can't be notable just because of the meeting or raceday on which it is run. I think the two recent examples straddle the notability divide: the Bessborough/Duke of Edinburgh passes because it is an established race with a bit of history; the Wolferton Stakes however is a relatively new event and hasn't really made much impact. I can't imagine anyone asking me what I fancied for the Wolferton, or a trainer announcing that his horse was "going for the Wolferton". Two other points. I think that if a sporting event gets significant coverage in reliable sources, then it passes General Notability and is a reasonable subject for an article. Another thing is that the current status of a race now isn't always the best guide: for instance the National Stakes (Great Britain) is a very minor event these days, but used to be very important and valuable and is certainly notable on historical grounds. The third of my two other points is that Group/Grade systems need to be viewed with caution as there is no globally agreed system and a great deal of variation in standards. Take a look at the list of winners of the Prix Niel and bear in mind that this is a French Group Two event.  Tigerboy1966  00:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

All sorts of good points there! Re the current status / past status, I agree totally - I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about the "Major Wins" sections of many trainer and jockey articles, which focuses solely on current Group One races and in some cases confers spurious "major" status on past victories which never carried such importance at the time (or conversely denies it to races which have subsequently been dowgraded). Historical context is very important for me - too much editing on here concentrates solely on how things are rather than how they have come about. Anyway, I'll leave my ramblings - we'll talk next June about what you've backed in the Wolferton!!! --Bcp67 (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Terminology and Importance

• Reading through some articles, it seems that there is a lot of jargon present. I know a little about horses and racing, and can mostly infer the meanings, but others might not. I understand the desire to write about the subject in the way that other sources do, so shouldn't we at least try to wikilink to the jargon words?
• Deputed Testamony is ranked as a "Low-importance" article. Shouldn't all winners of a triple-crown race (at least) be elevated above this lowest possible importance? Particularly those with a race named after them?

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

To your first question, we have articles on many topics, I don't think there would be problems linking to some things, any words in particular a problem?? We also have Glossary of equestrian terms and a couple different glossaries of racing terms (linked from the equestrian glossary, one for US terms, one for Au/NZ terms, interestingly, none for UK terms as of yet, though the other two cover most "magic words"). However, just like nautical words, some terms are really unavoidable, we are going to say that ships have port and starboard, not right and left, similarly we will say a horse has a sire and a dam, not a mother and father. (grin). To the second question, no, as we'd be putting several hundred, if not over a thousand horse articles up from low to mid, which would pretty much be against the purpose. And, we'd also have to add equivalent winners of UK and Australian races, at a minimum. The wins establish the horse as notable enough to have a WP article in the first place, nothing more. You have to be a Secretariat or something to bump up the rating. I suppose someone could make an argument that a specific horse such as Deputed Testamony would by himself warrant a bump from low to mid if the reason he has a race named after him is because of something special he did (besides being locally famous for his win), but would take discussion at the individual article. Montanabw^(talk) 18:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• I tend to reserve "mid" importance for horses who have had an impact beyond their immediate time and place. So horses who achieved international renown or became successful or influential sires and broodmares (mothers and fathers). But I know I'm not consistent.  Tigerboy1966  00:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That's kind of a good general guideline, though "influential" is also kind of relative... Montanabw^(talk) 16:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tigerboy's argument on the mid classification. For a horse to even be mentioned in Wikipedia, it has to have either won a major race (Group 1 or equivalent usually) or been successful at stud to be notable. Disputed Testamony did win the Preakness but that was pretty much it, he was not stellar at stud and the race named for him is an ungraded, local stakes race. Probably equal to the other horses that have won one TC race. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 18:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. With regard to jargon, I just wanted to get a feel for whether to wikilink the specialized words – as I said, I understand the need to use them, just as in other disciplines. I'm not going to go around adding thousands of links, but if I happen to be working on an article, I will add some.

As far as importance, I suggested upgrading because there are two more levels above Medium still in which to place the more notable and extremely notable articles. I'd expect it to look more like a normal distribution. Here's some stats about this project versus all projects versus a normal distribution:

% of Articles by Importance

WikiProject	Low 100↓	Medium 100↓	High 20↓	Top 20↓
Horse racing	86.5	11.6	1.4	0.4
Equine	91.5	6.5	1.7	0.4
Cricket	70.8	26.9	2.2	0.05
Baseball	80.7	15.4	3.5	0.4
All	71.9	20.8	5.6	1.6
Normal dist.	68.3	27.2	4.3	0.2

Not that I'm sure that different projects should have different ratios – just providing some food for thought. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. We have about 8k articles so a normal distribution would suggest about 2000 mid and 350 high importance article. Of course it could be that we have it right and everyone else is wrong.  Tigerboy1966  13:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Curious how that stacks up against User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Equine where we have about 3000 articles. Here, I think the huge number of 19th and 20th century race horse "biographies" is a factor that skews things to "low" -- so many articles of a similar nature. Not sure if there is a wikiproject cricket or not, (or baseball for that matter) but if it tags all the team and player articles, I'd suspect a similar distribution to this project. Montanabw^(talk) 21:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes and yes. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Added to table above. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Now add User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Football ? Montanabw^(talk) 20:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think that one issue is that a lot of "human" articles are either unwritten, undeveloped or untagged. I just found that the Alec Taylor, Jr. article wasn't included in the Horse racing project. Twenty-one classics makes him at least a "mid". It might be useful to comb the lists of big-race winners to see how many other people have been overlooked. As trainers, owners and jockeys typically have careers which span at least a decade or two, this could be a source of our "missing mids". I'll be achingly predictable and start with the Epsom Derby. Tigerboy1966  22:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I found that the likes of Marcel Boussac, Aga Khan III, 17th Earl of Derby weren't included in the project. I've added them. Tigerboy1966  23:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a table I made ages ago, using British jockeys and North American horses as examples. Adapted from Wikiproject biography. I can't say I always stick to it and it's not definitive, but it's a starting point (btw I see that Northern Dancer is now a TOP) Tigerboy1966  21:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Article importance grading scheme

Label	Criteria	Examples
Top	High probability that non-Racing fans would look this up. Must have had a large impact outside of their main discipline, across several generations, and in the majority of the world. .	Epsom Derby, Kentucky Derby
High	Must have had a large impact in their main discipline, across a couple of generations. Had some impact outside their country of origin.	Lester Piggott Northern Dancer
Mid	Important in their discipline.	Willie Carson Curlin
Low	Subject is notable in their main discipline.	Ryan Moore Red Bullet

I personally don't think that is quite strict enough, yet in some ways, maybe too strict ("majority of the world"- do they give a flying f**k about Thoroughbred horse racing in, say, Congo?) ; for example, Northern Dancer could be mid or maybe high, but certainly not TOP. Darley Arabian might be "top"; or Hambletonian 10 arguably, but not all important in the last 60 years horses! Top is for Thoroughbred, etc... if you look at the general criteria used across all articles, then "top" is something like "critically important for understanding of the topic. For example, someone just made jockey "top," and I do agree with that. Oh, and note we already have an assessment criteria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Horse_racing/Assessment#Importance_scale Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

agree with assessments. I didn't like the existing criteria. The description of Low sound too much like not notable to me. As I said above, I think that the low-end skew is partly due to the lack of included articles on owners, trainers and jockeys: many of these have an impact over several years, even decades and would be pretty obvious mids. I did a few articles over the weekend, but I'm not sure I've got the hang of human bios, see John Barham Day, Richard Marsh (horseman).  Tigerboy1966  21:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

On WPEQ, everything is "low" unless there's a damn good reason to raise it. Here, we have far more than just biographies, we have tracks, races, concepts, etc... I like the existing assessment cats better -- and I think they are more in line with overall WP guidelines. To me "important" and "notable" are basically interchangeable...I think that WP:NOTABLE covers all "low" articles, nothing not-notable should even be in wiki. I hate the edit wars that erupt over "is this mid or high or...?" crap. I mean, major UK stuff is a "huh? Never heard of it!" over here, and vice versa in the UK, I'm sure. Should the Melbourne Cup be listed as "top?" I don't know... Montanabw^(talk) 00:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Melbourne Cup is NOT one of the core horse racing topics. I must have missed it when a Kiwi, User:Wallie, changed it from High to Top a couple of years ago. Thanks. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the re-ratings of the horses, I mean even Eclipse you could argue against being top. I raised the 2000 Guineas and Preakness to Top a few weeks ago to be in-line with the Belmont and Classic being rated as Top, but thinking about it non of them probably should be. Edwarddutton (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Rosecroft Raceway

Hey everyone on WP Horse racing. I think this might be the right place to post this, but if it's not, let me know, and I'll move it. I've been working on my town's track, Rosecroft Raceway, and it recently became a good article. I am asking if there is anyone who could provide any comments / help on what the article would need to become a FA? I have set up a peer review, too, but I thought I would ask here. Thank you to anyone in advance.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Happy to take a look. I really don't know much about harness racing and my best efforts so far have involved getting articles to GA, not FA, but I'll try to come up with something.  Tigerboy1966  23:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Besides horse racing, Rosecroft has allowed other non-horse racing activities. The section I've bolded looks redundant to me.  Tigerboy1966  23:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, that's true. Thanks, Tiger!
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposing deletions

I was looking through some stubs and adding infoboxes when I stumbled upon a group of articles which I am planning to propose for deletion. They were all created in the space of an hour by a single user on 10 December 2010. They seem to be part of a list of racehorses who died in unfortunate circumstances: Old Trieste, License Fee, Altibr, Spanish Fern, Grozny (horse), Secret Firm and Secret Hello. All very sad, I know, but I can't see these ever being "proper" articles. You're only supposed to PROD articles when no-one is likely to object, so I thought I'd bring the issue here for comments before I went any further. It's only fair to note that at the same time, the same user created perfectly viable stubs on Chester House, Danetime, Toussaud and Personal Flag. Tigerboy1966  22:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if some can be saved by more research. For example, Old Trieste "contended for the triple crown" and clearly lived several years past. Do we know if he was a contestant in any of the three triple crown races? If so, he probably meets the notability criteria. (For example Hansen (horse) was also a "contender" who won some prep races but was unimpressive in the Derby and has his own article). I would agree that non-notables should be prodded, but let's be sure we do have non-notables by a consistent criteria, and not merely a poorly-sourced stub. Montanabw^(talk) 19:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we can certainly give Old Trieste the benefit of the doubt as he won the Grade II Californian Stakes and sired a couple of Grade I winner in Silver Train and Sinister Minister. I think Altibr (Dubai Duty Free Stakes) and Spanish Fern (Yellow Ribbon Stakes). Tigerboy1966  23:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

added an infobox and a couple of refs to Old Trieste. Tigerboy1966  23:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Racehorse stats Template

I found this in Japanaese Wikipedia, should any one translated in English, and replace some Japanese website, e.g. Racingandsport.com.au, Emiratesracing.com, Equibase, Hong Kong Jockey Club, France-Galop etc. Note: There is no reliable English source for JapaneserRacehorse. --Horsemeister (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rosecroft Raceway/archive1

Hello, everyone:

I have nominated Rosecroft Raceway, a harness racing track in Maryland, for a featured article. However, there has not been many comments, and it would be greatly appreciated if anyone could take a took at it. Thank you to everyone in advance!
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 22:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

End of year wrap-up

Members might want to look at providing end-of-year summary sentences for racehorse articles which don't have them at the moment. This is especially the case for horses who are at the end of their careers (mainly Northern Hemisphere flat-racers). Something along the lines of "x was retired from racing in December 2012. He will begin his stud career at Grassy Lawn Farm, Kentucky in 2013."  Tigerboy1966  20:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we have any way of tagging these? Or is there an index where we can find stuff that does have an "asof" tag already? Montanabw^(talk) 22:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just going to look through Category:2006 racehorse births (2007,2008) etc. I'm looking at article which already have a bit of substances to them, but then just stop. I've just rounded off Golden Lilac for instance. It would be good to have a "lacks conclusion" template but I wouldn't know how to do that. Tigerboy1966  08:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Are the existing templates {{out of date}} or {{update}} of any use here? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks RedRose, I think the update template fits the bill. Tigerboy1966  20:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Aint we got fun

Edit warring new (probably not really new) user at Secretariat (horse) see history. Reported user for edit warring. Just FYI. Montanabw^(talk) 22:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople

An RfC discussion about the MOS:FLAG restriction on the use of flag icons for sportspeople has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. We invite all interested participants to provide their opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)