Former featured article candidateKentucky Derby is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 11, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted

Sponsorship edit

Opening sentence contains "presented by Woodford Reserve". Does this article only apply to the Derby's that Woodford sponsored? That seems to be a marketing gimmick that might belong somewhere else in the article. It would seem akin to saying "Secretariat crossed the Purina Horse Chow Finish Line x lengths ahead of...". NBC may be obligated to say "presented by..." as part of broadcast rights, but does it belong there on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.161.255.18 (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

The article on the 2018 Kentucky Derby contains this because, like it or not, that is the race's official name for that running. It shows in the chart and the industry database (Equibase) and some news articles also mention it (especially those by industry publications like the Bloodhorse). In the main article on the Derby, we mention sponsorship only in a special section. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Picture question edit

I found the following picture on the KY Tourism webpage.

 

They grant immediate permission free of charge for any use, as long as it promotes Kentucky travel. I uploaded it with the Conditional copyright tag. My question is, does a Wikikpedia article on the Kentucky Derby constitute promotion of Kentucky tourism, or is this too big of a stretch? Sayeth 17:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I would say Yes, but IANAL. :) — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 21:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sayeth, what he means is "I am not a lawyer." For some reason he does not grasp that most people don't know what "IANAL" means, or that it takes only an additional 0.5 seconds to type the phrase itself rather than the all-caps abbreviation. User:AndyCapp 23:37, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Ummm, methinks Sayeth didn't ask what IANAL meant. At any rate, it has become a rather common shorthand, and I'll continue to use it, if it pleases your majesty.  :) — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 11:01, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Steevie's right - I'm hip with the "emoticons" you "leet kids" on the "Internets" speak with nowadays. I didn't post the pic in the article since I figured Steevie was answering "Yes" to the second option in my question - that is he was saying "yes, it is too much of a strech to say that this article promotes Kentucky tourism, but I'm not a lawyer". Sayeth 03:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


Derby film edit

Anyone know about this film? Joanne Vannicola was in it.

Winners table notes edit

Nit-picky formatting issue, placed here (instead of being WP:BOLD) because I'm not very active any more, nor have I been involved in this subject area much :) :

In the table of Winners by year, a dagger (; U+2020) is used to indicate triple-crown winners. My initial reaction when seeing this symbol in the table, though, was that the horse had died, since that is a common implication of this symbol when next to a name or date (see 2nd graph at Dagger (typography)#Modern usage).

A better symbol for the triple-crown might be ³ and maybe (U+2640) for filly.

Also, the Time header has a * superscript, but this is also used next to the dates and is properly defined at the bottom of the table for that purpose. A different symbol should be used for the Time note and the Note at the bottom of the table changed to reflect it, right?

OTOH, maybe use the standard note scheme with alphabetical superscripts (to differentiate them from citations) as is done elsewhere in WP? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we can use non-standard symbols due to accessibility concerns, but I shall ping RexxS, who is our resident expert on that. The 3 might not be a bad idea, except it looks like a footnote. Perhaps three daggers...††† or something... Montanabw(talk) 02:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

There are several problems:
  1. Screen readers are not guaranteed to read out every symbol that we might choose to use. In fact, the commonest screen reader doesn't even read out † so we recommend using an image with alt text such as {{}} instead.
  2. Visitors with less than perfect vision, which includes most older folk like myself, often have difficulty in discriminating very small text. Sadly I can't see the difference between and q without zooming my browser, and I initially thought ³ was a spot of dust on my monitor screen.
  3. The use of '*' to identify a note has the problem that if you begin the note with '*', the Mediawiki software turns it into a bulletted list.
I would recommend placing the informational notes before the table, so that the reader doesn't have to go scrolling to the bottom of the table just to find out what † might mean - that's of particular importance to screen readers which have no 'scroll' function. Also replacing uncommon symbols with commoner ones, or preferably with the accessible template would benefit users of screen readers.
The use of † to mark a death seems to have been inherited from the German Wikipedia, but it's by no means an exclusive usage. I doubt that every listing of a cricket team contains the name of a dead wicket-keeper.
I'll make some changes to the section - see what you think. --RexxS (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Go for it, RexxS, you are the expert. We shall let you know if something wonky happens. Montanabw(talk) 21:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
I did, but you moved the notes back to the bottom with the edit summary "Notes should be at the bottom". Have a think about that: why should notes be at the bottom? Because we've always done it that way. If we place the notes at the top, everyone will be aware of them before they start reading the table. It's not difficult for a sighted reader to scroll down and read notes at the bottom and then scroll back up to find where they were in the table, but it's a major disruption for a screen reader to find out that there are notes, next to find what the notes say, and then to go back to where they left off in the table. What's more important: an advantage-less convention or the convenience of impaired visitors? Just a little food for thought. --RexxS (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hm. Interesting. As a reader, I am used to map keys and such being treated like footnotes and going after the content. That's the only reason I have... I suppose so long as they are not too long, it's not a bad thing. Montanabw(talk) 23:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kentucky Derby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Race times edit

Why don't the articles have the race times included in the charts?

Example:

  • First Place Winner (Justify) ... winning time = 2:04.20.
  • Second Place Winner (Name) ... winning time = 2:05.20
  • And so forth

Isn't that statistic an important component of these races? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Generally, only the finishing time of the winner gets circulated. --SubSeven (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Correct, until very recently, only the winner was ever timed. Now Trakus data is available for each horse at certain racetracks, but that information is essentially proprietary and seldom referenced (besides being somewhat unreliable because of technology issues). The general rule of thumb to estimate the other finisher's times is to add one-fifth of a second for each length they finish behind the winner. (Eg, Secretariat's time in the Kentucky Derby was 1:59 2/5, Sham finished 2.5 lengths behind so is widely considered to have finished in something less than 2:00 flat) Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I am not at all familiar with horse racing. However, it seems that you are saying that the horses' finishing times are not that important, but the number of lengths behind the winner is. And, ultimately, the time and the number of lengths is correlated. So, why don't the charts include the number of lengths behind? I guess my point is: it's somewhat important -- or, at the very least, interesting -- to see if the second place winner lost by a hair or lost by a mile. I would have thought these details were important in horse races. No? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
I agree that winning margin can be very interesting but its not always available in our sources going back several decades. For the biggest races, we try to put extra information like this into the article for each year (eg 2018 Kentucky Derby), because all the data simply won't fit into the main wikitable. The time is relatively important, but it needs context. For example, was the race run over a fast track or a muddy track? Was the winner being pushed to his limit or easing up at the wire? Was the race cleanly run or did horses break poorly / get stuck in traffic? Was the early pace fast or slow? A comparison here would be for the 1500m in track & field, where the time is fairly meaningless at the Olympic levels because there are no pace setters. Whereas in golden league events, they pay for pacesetters and that's where all the top times are registered. FYI, in Europe with races run on turf that can range from bog-like to firm, time is not considered important compared to the manner in which the winner impresses handicapping experts. See also Timeform (ratings in Europe) and Beyer Speed Figure (most common rating system in US) Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. So, are you saying that neither finishing time nor number of lengths behind the winner is a widely available and/or reported statistic in these big races? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Stats for lengths back are widely available for major races. If they are not being reported in the applicable articles, they probably should be. --SubSeven (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I agree. For example: this article (Kentucky Derby 2018: Standings, Finishing Times and Prize-Money Results) has the data for "lengths behind winner" for the 2018 Kentucky Derby. And, for the 2018 Belmont Stakes: Belmont Stakes 2018: Triple Crown Results, Standings, Payouts, Replay Highlights. These figures should be placed in the article's charts. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
With major races, we have (or at least try to have) articles for each year. From the main article, click on the year (eg 2018) to go to that article, which will have margin of victory and a good deal of additional information that simply doesn't fit into the wikitable of the main article. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but that is exactly my point. Take this article here, for example: 2018 Kentucky Derby. There is a chart located here: 2018 Kentucky Derby#Results. In that chart, there is no column for either "finishing time" (for each horse) or for "lengths behind the winner". But, there should be. That is exactly why I posted my original question here. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ahh, now I understand! Sorry for being obtuse. The margin of victory is listed under the wikitable for the top three finishers. The other option is to add another column to the table, which is the approach I used in the articles for the Breeders' Cup Classic (eg 2017 Breeders' Cup Classic). Do you prefer that approach? I would note that it does get very difficult though to get this level of detail when you go further back in time. Specifically, our principle source, Equibase, only has online charts dating back to 1990. Also, the time of the second and subsequently placed horses simply isn't freely available information for current races and was never measured at all prior to Trakus in 2006. Jlvsclrk (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks. Yes, I think that the charts should have an additional column. And that column should be labelled as either "Time" (that is, how long did it take that horse to finish the race) ... or "Lengths Behind the Winner" (or whatever the proper terminology is for that). From the above discussion, it seems like "Time" is less important and also harder to find. And it seems that "Lengths Behind the Winner" is more important and also easier to find. I would propose adding a new column. Also, it would be great if we can get these going forward (let's just say, 1990 to present). I understand that the old data from races long ago is not readily available. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also, I am not sure what the word "Margin" means, in this context. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Margin as in margin of victory (or defeat, depending on your POV) "measure or degree of difference". I'll see if I can find a succinct source about margin and the rule of thumb for converting distance behind to time behind to add to the glossary of north american horse racing Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Jlvsclrk: Thanks for adding the "Margins" columns to the charts of these 3 major races. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Scoring everyone based on margin behind leader seems far more intuitive to understand. --SubSeven (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

2022 and 2023 Kentucky Derby. My Old Kentucky Home edit

See: Talk:My Old Kentucky Home.

See the section about the May 7, 2022 Kentucky Derby. It is about the song My Old Kentucky Home being in the news in a big way concerning the Derby.

I searched these archives: Talk:Kentucky Derby. I did not see any mention of the song or its author, Stephen Foster. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

They sang it at the race. I heard while watching the broadcast that a-lot of fans in the audience complained about the tradition being dropped. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is more discussion here: Talk:My Old Kentucky Home#Page Updates and the following sections. For example (emphasis added):

From that discussion.
The scholarship on this song is settled that "My Old Kentucky Home" originated as a sentimental minstrel song in the vein of "Old Folks at Home" or "Old Black Joe." These were minstrel songs that removed much of the overt racist imagery and sounds (e.g., dialect) to appeal to white middle class audiences. Contemporary scholarship (particularly the work of historian Emily Bingham) also supports the claim that the song experienced its greatest renaissance during the Jim Crow era as a means of reinscribing a "Southern" image of Kentucky's past. The article as it currently exists downplays the racist history of this song by denying its origin in blackface minstrel music and ignoring the widespread mobilization of the song to portray a romanticized vision of the antebellum South around the turn of the 20th century. I primarily cited secondary literature by historians and musicologists, who provide contemporary primary sources in their work. However, any prose or citations that I've included to support this argument, including those citations of contemporary primary sources, have been removed to preserve a false history that this song's historical legacy is primarily located in an abolitionist history. That is simply not borne out in the scholarly literature.

This is important info in light of recent efforts by some state leaders in various states to censor some info on slavery and racism in school curriculum, and libraries. And to paint slavery as not being that bad.

The controversy over the song at the 2022 Kentucky Derby continued at the 2023 one:

Emily Bingham, author of the book "My Old Kentucky Home. The Astonishing Life and Reckoning of an Iconic American Song", is also in that news clip. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pronounciation edit

I'm curious why the American race is pronounced Durby when the race it is named after, the UK Epsom Downs' Derby, is pronounced Darby. Stronach (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply