Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing

Active discussions
WikiProject Horse racing (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Horse racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Horse racing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Northern Dancer GAEdit

Hi there, I was wondering if anyone else would like to help me get the Northern Dancer article in GA or even FA shape. Looking for suggestions on both content and style, plus places where we might want to dig a little deeper. I've got two excellent books to comb for any desired details, plus can go through the NYTimes archives to expand on key sections. Just looking for perspective. Jlvsclrk (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Definitely deserves to be a GA or FA. I'll trot over to look at style, but I'm not super active on WP at the moment, so if you want me to do anything specific, post on my talkpage so I get an email ping... Montanabw(talk) 17:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I've submitted for GAR if anyone wants to take a look. Jlvsclrk (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
It passed! Yay and thanks to all who helped. Can anyone think of a good hook for DYK? First Canadian-bred to win KD? Only horse to win both KD & Queen's Plate? Called by the NYT the leading male-line progenitor of his breed? Combination of 1 and 3? Jlvsclrk (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Gulfstream Park Turf Handicap/Pegasus World Cup TurfEdit

The Gulfstream Park Turf Handicap is now known as the Pegasus World Cup Turf. It can't really be found on google or other search engines unless it is officially moved over. I attempted to do so, but there were issues with it. Can anyone fix it?

Thanks KatoKungLee (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Issue is that Pegasus World Cup Turf is a redirect to the current article title. You'll need to raise a RM to switch the titles around. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Definition of Major WinsEdit

I come across a problem fairly regularly where non-Grade 1 wins are added into the "Major wins" sections for jump jockeys and trainers. The races usually added are the Grand National, Irish Grand National, Galway Plate and Galway Hurdle, all significant handicap races. Our standard for the Major Wins sections for National Hunt are pretty clear- wins in current Grade 1 races go in, everything else stays out (although there is a different issue where a race has been raised to G1 status and past wins at a lower status are also shown). The problem for jump racing for me is that something like the Grand National is undoubtedly a "major win" by the standards of prize money and prestige, but as a handicap race it's not a G1 race and never will be.

Would it make sense to have a section titled "Grade 1 wins" and another for "other major wins" and some criteria for those? There would be more issues raised there, you could add all sorts of things to other major wins and make it a very long section - example, I'd say that the Ladbrokes Trophy is one of the major races of the British jumps season, whereas the Bet365 Gold Cup has perhaps been one in the past but less prestigious now. Others might not agree with me!! Or do we stick with the cut and dried criteria of a top-level race being a major win (Grade 1 or Group 1 according to country and naming convention) and remove any other wins which get added? --Bcp67 (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd say the Grand National is definitely an exception to the rule - its the best known jump race in North America by daylight after all. If I didn't see it listed in a given jockey's major win section, my assumption would be he'd never won it, not that the race itself didn't meet a notability threshold. I'm not as clear about the other three though. I have the same problem with the Canadian Triple Crown / Tiara races since none of them is even graded because of the restriction to Canadian-breds. I think the Plate qualifies as a major win regardless because of notability but the rest not so much. YMMV. Jlvsclrk (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Horse notabilityEdit

Hi! I'm reviewing Booker (horse), and thought I'd ask if there's any accepted notability standard for race horses. It seems to me this horse is non-notable per the GNG, but I welcome your opinions. Best, PK650 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Notability threshold is generally a G1 win, which the horse meets. In North America, we generally don't do articles for the borderline G1s but its always a judgement call. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I see, thank you. I came across Mystic Journey (horse) as well. I appreciate your feedback. Best, PK650 (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


Secret Firm & Secret Hello These one-line only articles need attention. They have been on Wikipedia since 2010.

My article Equality Stakes has the {{notability}} tag that needs assessment. The article needs the tag removed or be deleted. Stretchrunner (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfinished articlesEdit

Hi everyone. I have been using the break between flat seasons (which seems to get shorter every year) to do some updates on racehorse articles. I've found quite a few articles which are half-finished or stop abruptly half way through a horse's track career. This usually happens when a horse makes a big early splash but then grinds away for a couple more years without achieving anything spectacular. Today I found Idaho which I have been working on just now and Satono Diamond but I bet there will be a few others. Most of these are articles I started but forgot to update. Let me know if you find any others, I'd like to get this finished in the next few weeks. I'm sticking to European and Japanese flat racers up to the end of 2019 because that's what I can manage. Tigerboy1966  19:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

National Racing Museum and Hall of Fame site down for constructionEdit

The National Racing Museum and Hall of Fame external web site has been taken down by its owners National Racing Museum and Hall of Fame. They are making renovations to it. It will be back in July 2020. They are not leaving the existing web site up in the meantime, just a renovation message. This will be extremely inconvenient to all of the hall of fame inductee articles. For the time being, you could use this archive page for links to the main racing hall of fame page: National Racing Museum and Hall of Fame external website.

The 2020 Hall of Fame induction ceremony will take place on Friday, Aug. 7 at 10:30 a.m. at Fasig-Tipton. I have located the following Internet Archive Wayback Machine sites that can be used instead (up to the 2018 inductees). Or, you can just wait for the Internet Archive Bot to do the replacements. Once the new site is up in July, then the citations can be changed to the live links. Here are the links to the archive. It really doesn't matter which ones you use from 2018 or 2019 (up to the captures which just ones that capture the announcement). None of them capture the ones with the 2019 inductees.

Shirley Heights (horse)Edit

The article about Shirley Heights is undergoing a lot of editing at the moment - looks like it is going to need a lot of revision afterwards! Could someone have a look and see if they can repair some of the damage. I'll give it a go myself when I have time. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually on a second look I think it's beyond redemption and needs reverting to this version - [1]. It's barely written in comprehensible English, for example this; "As like this Gr3 event was a warm-up for the step down in class but on the same distance of a mile and two furlongs, Shirley and Starkey went on to win the Heathorn Stakes." Any views on this article and what we could do about it? --Bcp67 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Yikes! I sympathize with the writer wanting to expand on the article of an amazing horse but the style is... I don't want to be mean so I won't say it. If I get stuck at home this/next week, I'll go through and do a thorough edit. Does anyone have time right now to at least tone it down? Jlvsclrk (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Same editor has been "improving" Dashing Blade. Obviously a fan but WP:CIR. Tigerboy1966  07:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, So, I’ll be bad cop and go over there and just revert to status quo ante per WP:BRD. You guys can be good cop an explain it to them to them. I’ll also check contribs to see if they’ve done more damage elsewhere. Montanabw(talk) 02:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

about coronavirusEdit

Until today, only me have edited about Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on sports#Horse racing information, including Grand National meeting. France Galop informed suspend all meeting until 13 April. Also, some jockeys cannot travel during country and jockey clubs ban. This maybe update quickly, please help me. --Horsemeister (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Excellent. Here's a link to the BloodHorse's page on Covid updates for racing in the United States Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

A horse race that won't be canceledEdit

That's right. The $100,000 Maryland Hunt Cup is the last Saturday in April. And they are not going to cancel it. A chance to see Senior Senator try for his fourth win and break the record. Senior Senator eyes fourth Hunt cup win. Several horses have won it three times, including Hall of Fame horse Jay Trump. Hall of Fame horse Ben Nevis (known as Ben Nevis II in the US) won it twice. Both horses won the Grand National in England.

The Maryland Hunt Cup is the greatest timber race in all of the world! Saturday, April 25, 2020. The 124th Running. The Maryland Hunt Cup dawnleelynn(talk) 23:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Those fences don't look very forgiving! --Bcp67 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I now have foot in mouth disease too. They just canceled it! I bet this has happened to a lot of people. Sorry folks, I really did think they would go on. dawnleelynn(talk) 15:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Senior Senator dies of colic. There won't be a fourth Maryland Hunt Cup in his future after all. I'm so sad about it, but he had a great life with his owner and jockey in Maryland. Three-time Hunt Cup Winner Senior Senator Dies

Reqested move The BMW -> H E Tancred StakesEdit

Hi. Can some admin follow through with the requested move of the Australian Group 1 event, The BMW -> to the registered name H E Tancred Stakes due to drop of sponsership? I'm not able to do the move myself because there exists a redirect already for the H E Tancred Stakes. A requested move was made seven days ago but its gone into backlog. No one has made an objection with two confirmations as seen in Talk:The_BMW. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Wolver HollowEdit

Hi, a new draft Draft:Wolver Hollow has been submitted to AfC with difficult to verify sources. It looks good to me, but it would be good if someone with knowledge of the subject area gave it a look. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Notable for being Henry Cecil's first major winner. Decent-looking article, there's a couple of links to dab pages which I'll sort out but I'd say its good enough to move into article space as it stands. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that Bcp67, I've accepted — Cheers, Keep safe KylieTastic (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

More submitted draftsEdit

Hi again, there are two other submitted drafts (both previously rejected) if anyone wants to comment on them, or try to improve them to acceptability if possible

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I can not speak for the former as he was based in America but Henry De Bromhead is decidedly eminent within the sport having trained thirty-three Grade One winners at the time of writing. It is not difficult to find mentions of him and his exploits in both trade and national news sources. There is a piece in The Times which gives a brief overview of how his career developed which, alongside his accomplishments, would probably satisfy the notability criteria. However, it does seem a rather convoluted means of demonstrating notability when his accomplishments alone should warrant same. Particularly within a profession which does not typically lend itself to biographical fluff pieces outside of the trade media. Henry De Bromhead very easily satisfies the guidelines set out here so it does concern me that a figure's notability might hinge on something as arbitrary as the whim of a newspaper editor.Kotkijet (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

DiscordEdit

Hey all, I hope everyone is safe and healthy. My name is HickoryOughtShirt?4 and I'm a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey. I was wondering if there was any interest in starting a WikiProject Sports channel on Discord? There's quite a few of us who are interested in sports, and I think it would be a good idea to help the WikiProject recruit more members. You guys can join us through here.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Inter Dominion Hall of Fame CfDEdit

A Category for Discussion on the Inter Dominion Hall of Fame for its two categories has been added. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 15#Category:Inter Dominion Hall of Fame. The authoring editor did not see fit to add a notice here, so I am. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Progeny of race participantsEdit

So I have made entries for the Epsom Derbies from 1980 to 2000 and would hope to bring that up to 2019 by the end of the month. Nevertheless this concept is not my property and as enjoyable as the research can be, I would not be upset to find other years (or better yet, other races) receiving the same work. The format and criteria for inclusion of offspring has thus far been largely improvised and discretionary. While not an advocate of prescriptivism, it might be worth considering some form of standardisation. The current format, which has arisen organically, broadly follows these principles;-

  • Sires are split into four categories (Classic winning, Grade/Group One winning, National Hunt, and Others) with broodmares given an overview when applicable.
  • Priority is given to classic stallions - i.e. a horse who sires one 1000 Guineas winner and ten Grand National winners will be placed among the Classic winning stallions.
  • Up to four or five offspring are mentioned with an example or overview of their accomplishments.
  • For the first two categories, these will typically consist of the most accomplished flat horses with slots available for a sufficiently notable broodmare and/or national hunt horse (a Champion Hurdle winner would likely gain a slot but a winner of a Grade One novice or mares' race would not displace a champion flat horse).
  • For National Hunt stallions, progeny do not necessarily have to be Grade One winners. Incidental pattern class flat horses might warrant a slot.
  • Others will include everything else from stallions of minor or lower pattern class winners to horses exported to stand outside of Britain, Ireland or France.

Insofar as matters of ambiguity are concerned, the greatest areas of contention might pertain to which races qualify as classic races. For example, neither the Irish St. Leger nor the Prix Royal-Oak are exclusively for horses of the "classic" generation while the Premio Regina Elena has deteriorated from a Group One into a Group Three contest. I am not certain how to resolve this and while I might be inclined to favour discretion (Order Of St George was probably classic standard, Royal Diamond probably wasn't), I would rather act on a more general consensus. I imagine that distinguishing between internationally recognised Group Ones and their local counterparts should be relatively straightforward. As for the extent and scope of these sections, I would be in favour of the current format which offers a more broad overview than anything exhaustive. Not least because of the energy required for production and maintenance but also that pertinent elaborations might be better placed within the article of the stallion himself. Kotkijet (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I had a similar issue when working on the Northern Dancer sire line article, because the whole point of calling a race a classic is to identify horses who've proven themselves against the very toughest competition of their generation. So obviously the five English classics are a no brainer, and the only problem with the American classics is figuring out which filly races to include since it's never really been a thing (long story). I went with three French classics (the ... pouliches is never as strong as the ... poulains), 2 in Ireland, 1 in Germany, 3 in Australia and 3 in Japan. But I've not included the Queen's Plate for example since its restricted to Canadian breds. If you want to discuss a more extensive list, that's great. The sire line article has an implicit bias towards races for colts since only they can continue the sire line after all!
I agree about having a general overview because maintaining a comprehensive list would be exhausting for major sires like Galileo, especially once you get past the classics.
You've inspired me to consider doing the same for the Kentucky Derby articles. Fortunately, I have a great source, Avalyn Hunter's American Classic Pedigrees It's not really known as a future stallion's race, but there are some real notables when you go further back. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jlvsclrk. I am thrilled that you're interested in doing the same for the KY Derby and would be very excited to see the results. That looks like a very handy source and would definitely be a useful guide. As someone whose accuracy rate is probably quite poor, I would be keen to cross check it with another source to be on the safe side. Are you familiar with Galopp Sieger? It isn't definitive or perfect but I think that would definitely be helpful as it highlights classic winning offspring in its tables and you can even filter them with the "Art" drop-down under "Nur Klassiker". For example, I am looking at Bull Lea and can see that Faultless, Hill Gail and Iron Liege all won Classics while Citation is marked with a little crown icon. I do not know the extent to which the fillies' races are considered inferior to the colts' counterparts but looking at Galopp Sieger, I see that Real Delight is listed as a stakes winner rather than a classic winner. My familiarity with the American pattern is not particularly strong though so your judgement on the matter would be better than my own. Nevertheless, I think that the French and Irish Guineas and Oaks (including the Pouliches) can be safely regarded as quintessential classics. With regards to the Irish St. Leger and the Prix Royal-Oak, perhaps a rule of thumb can be if a horse is a three year old when winning the race, it can be considered classic? With the German and Italian ones, I prefer that the post 1970s renewals held Group One status before labelling them as classics for the purposes of stallion classification, but could otherwise still consider them to be races of interest in the absence of anything more concrete. For the Australian classics, I presume we are using these races? As for Japan, I would be happy to use all five but only those run after 2001 since those prior were restricted to Japanese bred horses only. Up until 2010 they were still restricted to locally trained horses although I would be inclined to forgive this protectionism since it is easier to transfer horses from trainer to trainer than to alter their country of birth. For I know that Central European countries such as Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic have local group races and believe that South American countries also have the same but am unsure as to whether any of them translate to being internationally recognised Group Ones. I agree that more weight should be afforded to sires although I think there is a place for the fillies given that sires can't produce classic winners by themselves! I will probably have to go back and amend quite a few of the additions but I am much more comfortable with a structure.Kotkijet (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Having moved Beat Hollow to the "sires of Classic winners" on the strength of him siring an Irish Leger winner, I have to say I mostly agree with Kotkijet's view, and the Irish Leger & French equivalent aren't really Classics in my view since they were opened up to older horses. For me if a race was classed as Group One in the European pattern at its time, that specific win is OK to stand as a Group One win despite previous or later changes - all Italy's recent G1s have now slipped in status and I have a feeling that at least one is no better than Listed now. I know some countries (Japan ?) have the concept of international G1 and local G1 and for those it has to be international G1 only. I do have a wider issue about the "major wins" sections where we include all wins for races which are now G1s despite status changes - so for example, we would list all Lockinge Stakes wins in that section even though it was run as a G3 or G2 for much of it's history. Also - I think this addition to the Epsom Derby articles is absolutely excellent and all credit to Kotkijet for getting them going, and good luck to Jlvsclrk with the Kentucky Derby ones. --Bcp67 (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
As mentioned above, might it be an idea to consider the Irish St. Leger and the Prix Royal-Oak to be Classics when won by three-year-olds? My apologies but I am not sure I am interpreting your major wins concerns correctly in that they might relate to these pedigree additions. I am happy to include the lesser renewals as items of interest but would not use them as qualifiers when it comes to categorising stallions. My concern with retroactively elevating the status of certain races is that most of the future Group Ones in question would have been inferior contests to those which held Group One status at the time. This will be reflected in the quality of the fields, a single example being Macadamia who was given an official rating of 103 after winning the Falmouth Stakes in 2003. Furthermore, as the conditions of these races will have included penalties not found in Group Ones, a lot of consistency will be lost. As an aside, do you think we should be including Grade One handicaps as qualifiers?Kotkijet (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
My "major wins" concern relates to jockey and trainer articles, nothing to do with the pedigree part - but it's the same issue in general, making a race look like it was better than it was at the time. A debate for another time! --Bcp67 (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Aha, then we are in agreement! I have no issues with "named" races being included incidentally because they still have heritage value if nothing else. But they ought not be exploited as a means of artificially inflating the prestige of a horse or horseperson. --Kotkijet (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
For America classics, I followed Avalayn Hunter's recommendations for the two filly races, which are the Kentucky Oaks and the Coaching Club American Oaks. The KO is undeniably the strongest race for 3yo fillies while the CCAO has the longest history and has been part of every triple tiara combination you care to look at (that title though has always been new york centric, which is the only reason the kentucky oaks isn't always mentioned). I'll add the pouliches and the two irish races that you mention to my article for consistency. I excluded Italy for the reason you mentioned and thought that the German versions were a bit dodgy once you get past the Deutsches Derby. Japan is tricky but the quality is now so high that I think its appropriate to include even back when. it seems a bit mean to exclude the south american classics altogether when they've produced a few amazing horses like Invasor, but their overall quality is dodgy and influence on the breed is quite minor. Jlvsclrk (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for your input, particularly where the American Classics are concerned. I fear I may have turned what initially seemed like a fun and straightforward endeavour into a rather murky and chaotic affair. Notwithstanding, this is a voluntary labour of love so it is with calmness and joy that I have settled on this criteria for the European races at least. The Italian ones look rather ridiculous but given that breeding is the driving force behind these updates, I felt that bloodstock sales catalogues were probably the most authoritative guide for these purposes;-
Classic Races (all to count unless stated otherwise)

  • UK

1000 Guineas Stakes, 2000 Guineas Stakes, Epsom Oaks, Epsom Derby, St Leger Stakes

  • Ireland

Irish 1,000 Guineas, Irish 2,000 Guineas, Irish Derby, Irish Oaks, Irish St. Leger (3yo)

  • France

Poule d'Essai des Pouliches, Poule d'Essai des Poulains, Prix du Jockey Club, Prix de Diane, Prix Royal-Oak (3yo)

  • Germany

Deutsches Derby, Preis der Diana (since 2001)

  • Italy

Premio Regina Elena (1984-1985), Premio Parioli (1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1990, 1995), Derby Italiano (up to 2008), Oaks d'Italia (1976-2006)

  • North America

Kentucky Derby, Preakness Stakes, Belmont Stakes, Kentucky Oaks, Coaching Club American Oaks
While several Canadian Grade Ones are internationally recognised, unfortunately none of the triple crown races counted amongst them.

  • Australia

Randwick Guineas, Rosehill Guineas, Australian Derby

  • Japan

Oka Sho, Satsuki Shō, Yushun Himba, Tokyo Yūshun, Kikuka-shō (all since 2001)

Group Ones
Internationally recognised, non-handicap, Grade Ones can be used from all aforementioned nations as well as Canada. South American and South African Grade/Group Ones can be used as notes of interest but not as qualifiers.Kotkijet (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a terrific list and I've updated the Northern Dancer sire line accordingly. I'd just note that in the US, Grade I handicaps can be very, very prestigious, especially in the past, so I wouldn't rule out horses that had won say the Metropolitan Handicap. And nowadays there's not much difference in weights assigned for a "handicap" versus a race run under allowance conditions like the Woodward. Jlvsclrk (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you and I think that's a fair point regarding Grade I handicaps. Which other handicaps should be afforded respect along with the Metropolitan? On that note, it might be worth putting the Melbourne Cup and Caulfield Cup in the same bracket (on the off chance that those are the only races taken by a Group One sire in the opposite hemisphere!) --Kotkijet (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The most prestigious American handicaps right now would be the Metropolitan (aka Met Mile), Cigar Mile, Clark, Manhattan, Ogden Phipps and Santa Anita. In fact, if you look at the graded stakes race article's list of G1 fixtures, the only handicaps that don't have a high reputation are some of the ones for fillies/mares or on turf. Having said all that, the trend in the US is away from handicaps because trainers of the best horses now just won't run if they get too high a weight, so that drives down field quality. OTOH, handicaps tend to attract larger fields so that drives up the competitive level. It's a balancing act and many long time fixtures like the Whitney have shifted from handicap to allowance conditions and back again. In the states, if its a G1, that means the top five finishers in the last few years have met the quality threshold for a Grade I: if the quality drops, the race gets downgraded, which happened recently with the Stephen Foster. So when looking at individual horses, you look at the grade in the year they ran.
Australia is somewhat different because they're more serious about handicapping horses so you do see some horses who win because of the weights instead of raw ability. But the race is so darned prestigious that I'd definitely include it. Not as sure about the Caulfield Cup, but with a purse that big it SHOULD be attracting top notch fields. Jlvsclrk (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Stayer article and redirect discussionEdit

Hello. There's currently a redirect discussion I started at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#Stayer which relates to the horse racing article currently located at Stayer (horse). It has been noted that Stayer (horse) is quite short, so I wonder if someone more knowledgeable could expand that article? (or perhaps you agree with the suggestion in the move discussion that it should be merged into a glossary article? Anyway, any input would be appreciated) Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi A7V2. That is a very short article which is decidedly lacking in context. If there is to be such an article, it should detail notable races and horses, differentiate between a stayer in North America and the rest of the world (1½ miles is considered middle distance in Europe) and perhaps include some theories on dosage/breeding. I am working on a non-wiki project at the moment and would not have the time, nor particularly the inclination, to expand it myself. As such, I would favour merging it into a glossary article. All best wishes, Kotkijet (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I added stayer to the North American glossary since it doesn't hurt to have it there even if we do decide to keep the separate article. I don't know if there's a European glossary. I think it would be interesting to cover the topic of stamina and the decline of distance racing in North America – just look at the change in distance for the Jockey Club Gold Cup for example since the 60s when it was two miles. But I don't have time for the research, though the article I used as a source in the glossary would be a good starting point. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
It looks like the redirect discussion has stagnated anyway, so probably the article will remain as it is for now (possibly moved to Stayer, but not merged into a glossary). Of course there's no rush (after all there's no WP:DEADLINE) in improving the article though. I really only brought Stayer (horse) to this Wikiproject's attention since it certainly to me looks like something which could definitely be a sizable article and of course this seems the most likely place someone interested and able to improve it would be! Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

New List article - All Graded US and Canada eventsEdit

To this Project group. I have created a new article - List of American and Canadian Graded races which is an equivalent to the lists that exist for the British, Australia and South American Group races. This list is for the 2019 season as per the references used. There are external articles that exists for the current season (2020) but I left updating this new article after the initial article was created and for anyone who is interested. Also since the season is affected by Covid-19 the list may be difficult to track. A partial list of Grade 1 currently exists in the Graded stakes race article. Now there is a bit of a mismatch since this article is complete and maybe the section in the Graded article point with a wikilink to this new list. All this is debatable and I'll let the gallery have their say.

To create this list I first made sure that every event in that list had an article. Hence, there were about ~27 new articles created for missing Grade 2 and 3 events around the country. A fair amount of effort went into creating these articles and all of them have enough references that should keep them from being tagged as unverifiable. In fact I tried to have a reference for each winner that was included in the winners section. This is not the case in many of the existing articles. Hope the list helps as a reference because I use the other racing list and they are very helpful. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that's great! It's a bit harder to maintain the list for North America because the grading yo-yo's each year, and names change like nobody's business. But it's wonderful to see them all together and thanks for adding those articles for the lower grades. I'd noticed that several racetracks like Kentucky Downs were virtually ignored.
As for references for each winner, yes, we have been a bit slack but the source for everything since 1976 is Equibase so it gets a bit repetitive.Jlvsclrk (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks excellent. I like having all the races in a single list - compare to List of British flat horse races for example where we split the races by status, including a fair number of ungraded races. What does anything think of moving to a single list format for the European countries? Makes it easier too when a status changes. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I leave Europe in your very capable hands, Bcp67. For North America, since we have 450 graded stakes races and the grading committee typically changes about 40 (!) grades a year and the calendar for each racetrack changes on the fly, it's going to be fun to keep the list up to date. Having said that, its definitely worth that investment in time. I've been working my way down the list and have had to make changes in at least half the articles I've come across. I haven't been checking in on the G2/G3 races often and some of them haven't been updated in years. Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Gentlemen, thanks for your comments. Jlvsclrk has given me some suggestions and I will implement them shortly. This includes somethings which have become standard for US/Canada articles. The reason I have started this way is that the sorting mechanisms of wikitable make it easier work in such a way. Grades will shown in Roman numerals. Date output formatting needs to be looked in as well. Currently its easy to sort but the display is not user friendly. I'll look into my software generation within the next couple of days to get the list in such a format. And yes - some of the event articles are way out of date. On my second pass I will try to clean them up and add references as well but I'm glad that you see this article can help in achieving the same goals we have here in WP. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Pat Day needs attention from a knowledgeable editorEdit

There has been quite a bit of dispute at Talk:Pat Day alleging biased and unsupported content at Pat Day. I know nothing about horse racing, but if someone here is interested, it appears to need some sorting out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

On it. Jlvsclrk (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Important (lengthy) information about horse race table setupEdit

WP:DATELIST = Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists

There are at least four Thoroughbred horse races where an embedded table setup has been reversed by a Wikipedia editor. The edit summary reasoning stated: ‎ →‎Winners: reverse order so chrono, remove {{cleanup section|date=December 2019|reason=dates in reverse chronological order, contrary to WP:DATELIST.}}

Response

The WP:DATELIST = Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists is not a policy, it is a guideline that allows exceptions and this is an exception that is important for Wikipedia to act in concert with the U.S. industry. To do that, we have hundreds of existing U. S. horse race articles with an embedded table beginning with the year for the latest race. Racetracks throughout the U.S. that provide a list of annual race winners online start with the most recent year first as per the sample list below. Plus, the very important Equibase Co LLC database starts with the most recent year [2] as does Pedigree Query, a massive database edited by volunteers which automatically places any individual race result by most recent year when created. [3]

Updating horse race article tables:
For Wikipedia editors, or viewers, having the first line of the race table start with the most recent year means the viewer instantly knows if it's up to date. If it is the last year first, a great many will not take the time to check to see if it's up to date or not, even if they understand the table is sortable.

Timeline of events

In Wikipedia's horse race articles there is often a historical section. These always begin with the first notable event relevant to the race like the Melbourne Cup#Timeline of notable events. In cases where sub-headers are used, each begins with the first notable information relevant to the race such as in the Golden Rod Stakes (Sheepshead Bay).

Sample of U.S. racetracks reporting tables
list of examples
NYRA - the 3 tracks all owned by the State of New York:

Note that Parx Racing [18] publishes their list with the oldest race first. For certain the defunct Calder Racecourse did too and I think Ellis Park Race Course might.

Even when a race such as the Breeders' Cup series is not in table form but instead each year is an individual page, the dropdown starts at the most recent year. [19] In pre-digital times when the Daily Racing Form (DRF) and other U.S. horse racing publications were printed on paper, a table of race results did begin with the earliest year. However, for readers of printed matter it was only a glance to find the latest or any other year's result on such a list and most of those lists were fairly short. And, in those days typesetting costs meant the order didn't change. [20]

All Wikipedia horse race articles get their highest number of views on race day. Today users want quick or "instant gratification" when accessing information online. The advent of the digital era saw racetrack operators learn very quickly that people searching their websites for information were there in volume to find that day's race results and increasingly so wanted the latest info to appear first. This is demonstrated through the link above to a Santa Anita Park page which has one page that provides links to annual media guides. The Stronach Group does the same thing for their Pimlico Race Course.

Every day that there is a horse race going on in the United States there is an online story with race details. Viewers coming to Wikipedia have the unique option of usually being able to click on the name of a horse, jockey, trainer or owner to obtain biographical info. Instantly seeing that latest result on the table's first line when they open the article is essential. Hence, there will be a considerable spike in page views on race day and often the day after. This viewing habit can be seen in the following Wikipedia examples:

Wikipedia horse race page views
Some selected examples and commentary

USA:
2019 Kentucky Derby [21]

2019 Kentucky Derby winning jockey Flavien Prat [22]

2019 Kentucky Derby winning trainer Bill Mott [23]]

The number of page views increases dramatically on race day even for a Grade 3 race such as the Withers Stakes run on Feb. 2, 2019. Note that the Wiki page did not include the 2019 results and wasn't updated until September 24.[24] And, even an ungraded stakes such as the Glens Falls Stakes with no table still gets a substantial increase in views on race day.[25]

England:
2019 Epsom Derby [26]

Worldwide reporting
Woodbine Racetrack in Canada published it's last annual list of races in 2018 which had their horse races beginning with the first year run. Some South Africa racetracks found online also listed their horse races beginning with the first year run as do some European venues. Other major racetracks or sports media outlets around the world begin with the most recent race:
  • Australia horse racing records by most recent year: [28] [29]

  • Racing and Sports Japanese races by most recent year: [30]

  • Hong Kong Jockey Club by most recent year: [31]

Eclipse Award tables

Similar to the recording of a horse race, and for the same reasoning, the Wikipedia Eclipse Award, Cartier Racing Award and earlier National Champion awards all have a table(s) that begins with the most recent year. Externally, the U.S. awards list can be seen in this DRF website [32] and this Blood-Horse magazine online Champions chart.The Bloodhorse.com Champion's history charts.

A winners' table starting with the latest year's result is not exclusive to Thoroughbred racing.

From the following two lists of sports clubs and the media it appears most every type of sports and media organizations could soon be publishing their online results history beginning with the most recent year.

Lots of examples
The official NBA website records begin with the most recent year:[33]

The official National Hockey League website records begin with the most recent year:[34]

The official NFL Pro Football Hall of Fame website records for Champions begins with the most recent year:[35]

The official Australian Open tennis website records begin with the most recent year:[36]

The official Stade Roland Garros French Open tennis website records begin with the most recent year:[37]

The official The Championships, Wimbledon tennis website records opens with the most recent:[38]

The official USTA Men's Singles Champions 1881 - 2019 begins with the most recent year: [39]

The official World Lacrosse - international federation for men’s and women’s lacrosse:[40]

The official Men's Softball World Championship winners begins with the most recent year: [41]

MEDIA:
ESPN list of World Series winners begins with the most recent year:[42]

NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship (Turner Broadcasting et al) winners begins with the most recent year: [43]

Sporting News - Indianapolis 500 winners begin with the most recent year:[44]

USA Today - Year-by-year Indianapolis 500 winners since 1911 begins with the most recent year:[45]

Stretchrunner (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Your issue? (I don’t mean that in a snarky way, it’s a question). I formatted everything up there so it’s clear that it’s all your post, my apologies in advance for any misformatting. Is this a dispute on a talkpage? If so, can you link? You are making a case for something, but I’m not sure what. Is it to decide whether to list events in charts with the most recent first? That’s simple, we just discuss and decide. I personally favor most recent first, as I think you do, but the real question is how many hundred articles are affected and who is going to do it. If you want to, I personally have no issue with that, but before one dives in and changes hundreds of articles, we probably do need consensus. Also, what the edit summary above suggests to me isn’t that the concern was chrono or reverse chrono, it was that the formatting was messed up. Important not to mess up formatting! Montanabw(talk) 22:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the issue was raised by a different editor, who reversed the order of the tables for three races, citing WP:datelist. I believe stretchrunner was documenting why we should stick with what we've got, and that its far from unprecedented to do so. I like most recent first because that's usually what I'm most interested in as a user, and its easy for me as an editor to see if its up to date, and to make the edits if it's not. All North American stakes articles that I've seen (and I've seen a lot as part of the cleanup associated with our new list of graded stakes) are set up newest first so there's no work required to maintain this standard, and an incredible amount if we did change it. It is a bit odd though if you're coming from European articles that seem to follow an oldest first standard. Jlvsclrk (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I think the European articles may be the older ones on WP and were created sort of en masse, perhaps working off of a single, older source. Maybe we should ping the European editors,(@Tigerboy1966:...?) as it seems best to be consistent unless there’s a logical reason not to be. And from many assorted wikiwars over the years, there’s always room for exceptions to any rule. Plus, best to know if there’s a logical reason. Montanabw(talk) 14:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the other wikipedia lists of sports champions oldest at the top seems much the most common. In fact it seems to be the most common for any chronological list. There are exceptions of course, and I wouldn't go rearranging lists just for the heck of it, although I probably have done for consistency: it makes sense for the lists in a particular field to have the same format. The winners of Australian and American races are nearly always newest first and if people are generally happy with that I'm fine with that as well. As far as I know all the European and Japanese lists are oldest first and I would be strongly inclined to keep them that way. Pinging @Bcp67:). Tigerboy1966  16:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Tigerboy1966. I'm also happy to keep the lists in different orders to fit with local custom and go against the guideline in WP:DATELIST. All my books with records of European races are oldest first and that's certainly conventional here for any list of sports winners, but if the custom in North America and Australia is to have the newest races listed at the top, I wouldn't want to change either set just to be consistent. Keep things as they are. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

So, am I accurately stating the consensus of the project that we are approaching these racing date lists in a way analogous to spelling in WP:ENGVAR, in that we follow the style used by the nation (or whatever relevant entity) in question? In other words, lists of North American and Australian races may be recent first, while we should keep the lists of European and Japanese (and presumably the rest of Asia) races oldest first? That said, I believe the individual horse articles have charts that are all chronological, first race to last. Montanabw(talk) 17:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a consensus. I might not feel as passionately about it if I didn't know how much work was involved! Why does America have so darned many stakes races? I've been updating for two weeks now and have gone through about 60 articles - more than 300 left though. Even when the table gets updated, people aren't updating the chit chat at the top to reflect recent history. And I really had to roll my eyes about somebody who created a "Top Three Finishers" article for some random GII/III races. We should probably really prune back on those and just have Top three finishers for the Classics / Breeders Cup and a few major Grade Is like the Met Mile. < end rant >
As for the tables of races in individual horse articles, I think oldest first makes sense there because it shows the development of the horse over its career, which feels like a better historical perspective. Most of the ones I've seen are set up that way. Zenyatta is the exception, with her last race shown first, and it throws me every time I look at it. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments needed - delete CategoryEdit

Somebody created this their first and only article before being blocked Category:Alydar offspring with its only entry Alysheba. Should it be deleted? Stretchrunner (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in my view. No reason to have categories for every possible sire's offspring, and no reason to have a category for Alydar's either. --Bcp67 (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I started a deletion discussion. It can be found here[46]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Need suggestions from WikiProject Horse racing membersEdit

Because it is very important in a horse's bio, I'd like to see a new Category for T'bred Horses that reflects a properly referenced fact in the bio that during it's racing career the horse established a New Track Record(s). Would like input as well as suggestions for a Category name to be used.Stretchrunner (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I do like that idea. It's such an important part in America at least, less so I imagine in Europe because track conditions are so variable. I can't think of anything less ungainly than "Thoroughbred track record setter" though. Suggest if we do adopt it as a category, we make sure it's in the lead. I know it's there for Secretariat, Man o' War, Northern Dancer, Dr. Fager, Spectacular Bid, Easy Goer and Arrogate - who are the horses who jump to my mind for the category. (ETA my signature: Jlvsclrk (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC))
This is definitely something which is a big difference between the European & American approaches! We've never been too bothered about record times here, it gets noted in reports, as when Kameko won the 2000 Guineas at the weekend in record time, but it won't be any sort of defining factor and I wouldn't look to put such a category on any European article. As mentioned above the variety of courses is the main thing and also I suppose the style of racing predominate in Europe, where we race with a slower pace and most of the action takes place late in the race. No personal objection to the creation of the category though. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I have no objection to a new category, but I feel rather strongly that we don’t necessarily need to clutter the lead to add “set track record” to of thousands of articles. That said, it should be referenced somewhere in the text. Also, there are race records, track records and national/world records. Do we have categories for the latter? (And in the case of horses like Secretariat, who set many records, it gets complicated) Also, keep in mind that Quarter horses and Harness horses also set track records, so I personally think a new category should consider other racing breeds. Pinging @Ealdgyth:, who knows QH racing and may have insights on this. Might I recommend Category:Horse racing track record holders?
My intention was for one simple category (holder no "s") posted only to a horse bio only and regardless of the number of track records set because that would be covered in the text. There is no need to change existing articles but I think I already do but if not, in future I will certainly mention track record in the opening along with HoF induction or TC winner and the like. In N/A a track record, even if broken a short time later, is a big deal. A World Record doesn't mean all that much. Good recommendation, thanks. Would like more suggestions for the Category name and see where that takes us. Stretchrunner (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Simple is good. Names are whatever the category gurus prefer, maybe ask them. As for the lead, WP:LEDE covers what goes in the lead, which is a summary of the overall article. Sometimes records are very relevant in the lede, sometimes not, kind of depends on what else the horse is noted for. I don’t think it’s a real big issue either way, so have fun with it. Montanabw(talk) 22:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Who the heck are the "category gurus" @Montanabw: ? I'll send them a message ASAP because I got nothing in my fried brain. Thanks. Stretchrunner (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Heh, I shouldn’t have used shorthand. I mean the people who do tons of work on categories, I’ll ping a couple, and if they don’t respond here, maybe you can ask them for ideas directly. Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Pigsonthewing?
We have the category name as suggested above and another by Pigsonthewing. Please come up with a new one or sign your name name below the one you prefer. I'll wait a week before creating this new category. Stretchrunner (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Prefer setters to holders: if a horse was notable for setting a track record, they don't become less notable when that record is broken. For example, Man o' War's last existing track record was broken last year, but he's still notable as a record setter in his own era. Ditto Dan Patch on the harness racing side. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Definitely “setters”. Holders change from time to time, making updates a huge maintenance nightmare. Montanabw(talk) 15:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Purse distributionEdit

I added a section on the article purse distribution about bonuses and added money, hoping to illustrate the difference between the stated purse and the total amounts paid out. Can someone give it a lookover to see if it makes sense? Also, I'd appreciate some input on whether this is relevant in Europe. I don't see an explanation on racingpost about how the purse is distributed equivalent to the one that goes on the top of each chart on Equibase. Jlvsclrk (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The article has a lot of relevant info but there needs sections introduced. The intro needs short and clear and there seem to be a historical and geographical needs for separation. Good stuff - need European input in this article. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
We need to discuss why total purses are not used in articles. The Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association which governs grading of events in the US collates their listing with total purses. This is the reference that is used in the List of American and Canadian Graded races article. I have reverted those purse amounts as per the reference. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I do a lot of race article updates to either add a complete table or expand an existing one. It is a massive and costly amount of work. Total purses for many decades of races aren't easily found in North American racing. The NYRA, all Stronach co's, Woodbine, Churchill Downs and almost all tracks that publish charts with historic annual race results show only the winner's share. These major tracks represent 90% of everything. Hollywood Park and Churchill Downs showed both, but they aren't publishing those detailed historical charts any more. The reason the tracks all show Win$ in historical charts is because that is what their online readers want. The total purse$ and or added$, doesn't matter to them. Stretchrunner (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
We should use the purse wherever possible because that's what is almost universally referred to - I can think of very few newspaper articles for example that refer to the winner's share. It's the $6 million Breeders' Cup Classic, not what's paid out to the winner. As for sources, everything from 1976 onwards just needs a quick look at the Equibase database (which of course shows the purse). But we do face the difficulty of sources pre-Equibase. I'd rather leave out the info than publish just the winner's share, but that's perhaps just me. Something may be better than nothing. Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the problem at all. Today the total purse is easily accessible via online charts. The articles are about the event not just winner. As far as what tracks show - It depends on the Track, but from what I have found is that both the Churchill Downs media information and the last Hollywood Park Media in 2012 show in larger font the Total Purse and smaller font the winners share. Historical Charts even those that I have referenced from 1890s have the total purse. Most newspapers who reported race results from 1950s to late 1980s had the Total Purse. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree, it won't generally be a problem and relatively few articles show the purse in the table anyways. I was surprised though when I was trying to update an article (San Carlos Stakes) to change it to purse but could only find the winner's share in the media guide. Maybe it's just Santa Anita? But that's a pretty rare exception. Jlvsclrk (talk)
Also the media guides that are provided are should not be the only source for referencing the article. In the pre 1976 era the newspapers that were covering racing were very thorough and should be expected since Racing was very much a popular sport. The LA Times and San Francisco Examiner and even the small town papers covered the sport and all concerns extensively in California. The Louisville Courier-Journal was also very accurate since horse racing is major industry and reporting all events including purse and distributions even to the point of having charts bought from the Daily Racing Form and Triangle Productions who in the 20th century were keeping track of the particulars of an event - And they were very accurate. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

One comment. When we are talking races that get an individual article for each year, like the 2019 Kentucky Derby, to include purse distribution makes sense. However, I hope we aren't talking about articles about races where we just update a list of winners or win-place-show, such as the San Carlos Stakes because this will create a perpetual nightmare of constantly updating every article every year. To say the total purse is X, is fine, but if we get into the weeds, we risk turning these articles into Equibase, which is kind of beyond the scope. Maybe just a citation in the list to the charts is all that's needed. Montanabw(talk) 21:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Each winner should have a reference. That gives credence to the entry in the list. A blanket reference for 110+ winners in an event with everything copied from a page in a media guide is bogus IMO. Event articles do not provide place or show information, nor do they provide odds or things which may be of interest to the reader. However a reference should be provided. The idea here is that many of these articles have been neglected and improvement is necessary. Every author has their own ideas as to how to do these articles. They have been around for a while and have been inconsistent in terms of form and content. A general improvement has been on going since the list to identify all out US/Canadian Graded races. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Editor's should do individual references for each race? I think that is physically daunting and nearly impossible plus I have to believe that such a requirement might well bring efforts by Wikipedia editors on tables to a complete halt. I also don't understand the statement that a "blanket reference for 110+ winners in an event with everything copied from a page in a media guide is bogus." The largest source for "blanket" info by far is the State of New York and even Del Mar is the State of California. I'm not sure how we could declare them bogus? Nonetheless, as User:Brudder Andrusha wants to do a 100+ year old race with individual references it is worth his sincere effort. I will post my last table shortly then stop doing tables and wait to see what he has done and how long it took him to gather that info. Stretchrunner (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Stretchrunner you will be waiting a long time to see all the graded events with a reference for each winner. My goal is not to do it one season but in several. This is a pleasure to update the events to something worthy of referencing. Luckily I'm retired now and I can update at my own leisure. But even NYRA can't update their event pages properly. They did indicate that the 1955 Vagrancy Handicap was run in Divisions but clearly they forgot who won the first division. Nice that we have other sources of reference. Cheers! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Don't be too hard on the NYRA. To me, they seem always to be very conscientious. I have their historical Chart through 2010 that has both 1955 divisions properly recorded. They got things right for many years until they hired someone new several years back for online management to update and change to "lite" tables etc. to reduce costs. That person screwed up for nearly two years the dollar amounts and other input. Needless to say, they no longer work there but for the NYRA, just finding all the crap errors is no easy task. Stretchrunner (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Input needed - delete CategoryEdit

This apparently solitary category is inconsistent with everything editors have done in horse racing articles at Wikipedia. It is unwarranted and I think should be deleted. Please comment. Stretchrunner (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Category:Racehorses trained by Fred Rimell

    • I started a CFD[47]. Feel free to join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Pedigree ChartsEdit

I think it would be great if every Project member would pitch in to ensure that all horses in the following articles each have a Pedigree Chart: Stretchrunner (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll start looking at the North American lists. What source do you use for the older sires? Equineline isn't always complete going back to the 19th century. Jlvsclrk (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
1) start with the ASB issues that are online - you will find a lot from at least 1867 onward with the most referred to being the 1889 [48] & 1898 [49] issues; 2) DRF archives [50] - sometimes in articles but usually you will need them as a race winner or in "past performances" - be careful with the mare if she has a common horse name; 3) Pedigree Query (normally not from this type of site but for the actual pedigree the operator does verify it); 4) more work necessary but there are many old books online you can download as a PDF with lots of pedigrees spread throughout. Stretchrunner (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Allbreed and Pedigree query cannot be used as citations on wiki, but like Find a Grave for people (unacceptable as a cite for the same reason... anyone can edit) maybe we can at least link to those databases in the external links section.Montanabw(talk) 02:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I've gone back 50 years now in the North American sire lists and am surprised at how many of them were missing pedigrees (plus poor Buckaroo didn't have an article at all). I guess we should console ourselves with the greater consistency we've achieved in what needs to go in these articles. As montanbw has remarked before, a lot of the older articles could use an upgrade, especially for Hall of Famers like Round Table. I've added that articles and several others to my to-do list, as time permits. Just need to finish upgrading Zenyatta, then Tiz the Law, then... Jlvsclrk (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Now working on Hail to Reason, whose article uses a capital "t" on the "to" in the title, and then inconsistently uses upper and lower case t throughout the text. The correct spelling is a redirect to the incorrect spelling. Can anyone help get that fixed. Silly things like that bug me! Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Australian RacingEdit

Hi all. My main focus is on Australian Racing. Not sure if any one has noticed but in the past all references to previous major winners in Australia was done through the website ‘breednet.com.au’. Well, they have since removed all these results from their webpage, click on any link to any major winner In Australia now and what appears is nothing or a page saying “this has been moved”. It looks bad. I've been thinking due to this it would be an ideal time to update Australian results of major races more in line with European and US racing Results which includes the jockey as well as trainer with a reference also. Does anyone object to Australian racing changing to this style also... I know it would be a big tast to change over to this style but I am willing to get stuck into it, however wanted to hear other users opinions and not tread on any toes. Look forward to your feedback. Sunline02 (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

First off, see if there are archived links to the old pages... there’s a bot you can have run that sends them all through the Wayback Machine, though I haven’t used it. Beyond that, I think that working on the Australia/New Zealand articles to create consistency with the others is a great idea. @Tigerboy1966: has created more horse racing articles than anyone else, I think so he’s a great resource for you for standardized structure. @Jlvsclrk: is a pro at the quality article improvement stuff, we worked together on getting Secretariat and American Pharoah to featured article status. But one bit of advice... don’t go anywhere near Phar Lap for awhile, the “was he an Australian horse or a New Zealand horse” question tends to break the internet in wasted bandwidth every time anyone messes with it! (LOL). I say go for it! Montanabw(talk) 08:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The breednet situation might not be so bad. I had a quick look at the Mackinnon Stakes and it looks as though they have merged all the results since 1983 onto a single page [51]. You would only need one ref for the whole table. When adding more detailed tables I would just start with winners since 2000 and leave the rest as a "Past winners" section. I do find the constantly changing names of Australian races confusing, although it's not as bad as Germany in this regard. Tigerboy1966  08:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I feared one day this would happen with breednet.com. The results were in an equivalent form with equibase (US/Canada) and to some degree with Racing Post. Maybe the pages have been moved to another URL within their site? Also Racing Australia was a good reference but I noticed that their pages would change as well. I have contacted breednet and will inform all about this since I spent good amount of time getting this references for all the OZ Group races. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Brudder. I will leave it be. It seems some of the breednet.com references are there, some are not. Sunline02 (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sunline02: Your suggestion merits further thoughts and support. I did see the new way Breednet is displaying their stakes results as by the link provided by @Tigerboy1966:. If we could come to some consensus on the template that could be used so that we don't go stepping on each others work then I would like to help by creating some software that would convert the current references so they would all point to new one that breednet is using. I do think the additional information about the event and winners in the table is quite helpful as per the current modifications that I am pursuing with US events. Since you have been continuing tirelessly to keep the Australian racing pages up to date I will let you lead in this area. Deadlink references are just not helpful in terms of WP:V and raising this issue here is very valid.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Sire line treesEdit

Hi all, I just noticed that someone added Sire line trees to a bunch of articles, mostly last November. I find them excessively long, tracing various horses (not only Thoroughbreds but some others as well) to the dawn of time. They are not sourced fully (and thus of dubious accuracy) and, frankly, we aren't pedigreequery.com. One example is here. I reverted three or four, but then figured out the editor who had put them all in, realized it's been someone who has been around for a while, and so I figured I'd better take it here before I toss the rest of them. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 05:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that with the Byerley Turk too. I think there's some benefit with foundation sires (plus Lexington for America) to show how their influence waxed and waned over time. So with the Byerley Turk, I tried to show that by highlighting the main stallions in the tree, rather than showing every darn racehorse. The ultimate source is probably tbheritage or bloodlines.
Then again, I am the person who started the Northern Dancer sire line article, and periodically thinks of doing the same for Mr. P. I do understand the temptation to show the detail! With Northern Dancer, I compromised by only showing horses that had won one of the major races shown, and who were thus notable in their own right. Jlvsclrk (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
It’s not their famous descendants, it’s the thing of tracing their ancestors back to the dawn of time. You weren’t the person doing the trees... maybe instead of the diff, look at the actual pre-revert version. Looks dreadful. For descendants, where they get out of hand, we can create a stand-alone list and link to it. Montanabw(talk) 22:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Renaming discussionEdit

Renaming discussion that may be of interest to project members here Montanabw(talk) 06:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Honor A.P.Edit

Dear horse-racing experts: This draft has been waiting a long time at WP:AFC for a review. Can someone take a look and see if this is a notable horse? Thanks.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Won the G1 Santa Anita Derby, second choice in the Kentucky Derby, yes, notable. Jlvsclrk (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

bloodstock.racingpost.comEdit

It appears that the horse profiles that used to be at http://bloodstock.racingpost.com/stallionbook/stallion.sd?horse_id=###### have been moved to https://www.racingpost.com/profile/horse/######/. Mostly the old address forwards to the new one, but not always - sometimes clicking on the old URL just leads to a blank page. But even in those cases, inserting the horse id into the new address format returns the right page, at least in the few random examples I've tried. It rather looks like there needs to be a mass conversion of the citation URLs to the new format; and the associated publisher=Bloodstock.racingpost.com parameter also should be updated to something like website=Racing Post profile. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yipes! We've probably got thousands of these. Anyone know how to get a bot to do this? Pinging RexxS for advice, he's the only scripts expert I know well enough to ask. Montanabw(talk) 17:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps a request at WP:BOTREQ. (I should add that I've no inside knowledge of this shift of addresses, it's just something I discovered from trying to chase down a few citations. It would be great if there's anyone who can definitely confirm that this reorganisation has taken place in the way it appears.) Colonies Chris (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Montanabw: a search for "Bloodstock.racingpost.com" in articles shows 1,054 results. You could try changing a few of these manually to check that the new url format works reliably. If it does, then either a lot of clicking with AWB, or a bot request is the solution for you. I often turn to my pal Mike Peel who runs User:Pi bot for one-off jobs like this, and he might be able to help you out. --RexxS (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I can have a look soon, but you may want to find someone that's better at regex than me! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be both more complicated and simpler than I originally thought. Simpler in that it looks like the distinction between sires and dams in the URLs is gone - so for example, what used to be at http://bloodstock.racingpost.com/dam/dam_home.sd?horse_id=439081#damTabs=dam_progeny_sales is now found at https://www.racingpost.com/profile/horse/439081/thimblerigger/progeny-sales (albeit that tab is paywalled), and you can get to the correct page without having to insert the horse name into the url (the website's software does that automatically). But you can't get to a specific tab without supplying the name (using the example above, https://www.racingpost.com/profile/horse/439081/ will get you to the horse's page, but going straight to a different tab without the name (https://www.racingpost.com/profile/horse/439081/progeny-sales) does not work. Seemingly the horse name has to be converted to lowercase and any spaces replaced by hyphens (e.g. https://www.racingpost.com/profile/horse/104011/danehill-dancer/fee-history. And special characters such as ' and . have to be removed e.g. https://www.racingpost.com/profile/horse/757547/roderic-oconnor and https://www.racingpost.com/profile/horse/301599/mr-prospectorColonies Chris (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I've been looking at the different variations there are on the bloodstock.racing.com URLs, and trying out a few regexes; based on what I've discovered, I'd like to propose a way forward. There are already many templates whose job is to build a URL for a reference database, such as {{ProQuest}} or {{PMID}}. They are invoked by replacing the url= parameter of {{cite web}} by id={{ProQuest|123456}}, for example. They encapsulate the URL-building in one place; this means that any future reorganisation of the Racing Post database would only require a change to the template rather than to hundreds of articles. Since it will be be necessary to scan and modify all the articles now, it would be good to take this opportunity to futureproof them.
In this specific case, new template {{Racing Post horse|######}} would need one to three parameters. At a minimum, and in most cases, just horse-id, extracted from the current URL. For those URLs that specify a tab, such as the Thimblerigger example above, the horse name and the tab identifier would also be needed. I can build the template; it would be pretty straightforward. Converting all the current URLs that just have the horse-id from url=http://bloodstock.racingpost.com/stallionbook/stallion.sd?horse_id=###### or http://bloodstock.racingpost.com/dam/dam_home.sd?horse_id=###### to {{Racing Post horse|######}} could be easily done by a bot, I think, or I can share my regexes and the workload can be spread across any editors who'd like to take it on via AWB (there are some complications at the end of some of the existing URLs that need to be handled, but regexes can easily deal with that). The more complex cases - the ones that specify a tab and therefore also need a horse name - would have to be handled manually, but I think the numbers are quite small, so that's manageable. The template would handle the conversion of the horse name as described above (lowercasing, etc.), so it would just need to be passed the horse name in its everyday format. How does this sound? Colonies Chris (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I've created a basic version of the {{Racing Post horse}} template which currently accepts only a single parameter (horse id). The usage and results can be seen in one article, Barton (horse) (reference no.3). It was also necessary to change {{cite web}} to {{cite journal}}, to remove the access-date parameter, which is not accepted for this sort of database reference, and the work=Racing Post parameter is no longer needed as the generated reference includes that link. Also i've removed the publisher=Bloodstock.racingpost.com parameter, which is no longer correct. All these changes can easily be performed with regexes in AWB, or by a bot. Any observations? Colonies Chris (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I’ve got no clue how to make this go, but if folks like Tigerboy1966 bless it for the UK horses and it works, maybe we could do the same thing on equibase or equineline....?
Yes, a quick look at some Equineline and Equibase links suggests that they could be approached the same way. It'd be very helpful to have input from someone with specific knowledge on this subject - I'm just a generalist gnome and techie. (In particular, the Equineline links have a lot of parameters which don't seem to be necessary e.g. American Pharoah has http://www.equineline.com/Free-5X-Pedigree.cfm?page_state=ORDER_AND_CONFIRM&reference_number=9314281&registry=T&horse_name=American%20Pharoah&dam_name=Littleprincessemma&foaling_year=2012&nicking_stats_indicator=Y - but experiment shows that just the horse id - http://www.equineline.com/Free-5X-Pedigree.cfm?page_state=ORDER_AND_CONFIRM&reference_number=9314281 leads to the same webpage). Colonies Chris (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Horse namingEdit

On a related question - what are the rules for naming horses? There's nothing in Wikipedia that I can find; there are many online articles on the subject, but they're mostly pretty jokey, not definitive statements. What characters are allowed? Some sources say only letters, numbers, spaces and apostrophes, but it's not hard to find names that use hyphens or full stops (see above). Does it vary by country? There are a few French horse names that use an accent (e.g. Épinard, Brantôme), but most don't, even when one would normally be present (e.g. Champs Elysees, Pas de Reponse). Colonies Chris (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Good question! In Britain under the admin of the BHA there is a limit of 18 characters in total and you can't reuse a protected name, mostly well known horses. Their rules are here [52] and their horse naming code is here [53]. You can't use a "name made up entirely of initials, or ones that include figures, hyphens, full-stops, commas, signs, exclamation marks, inverted commas, forward or backward slash, colon and semi-colon". So the (lucky!) 1956 Grand National winner E.S.B. wouldn't be allowed today and owners get round this by using names like DeeExBee. Not sure about accents - nothing specific in the BHA rules about those.--Bcp67 (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. It makes an interesting read. They ban 'figures' entirely (rule 5), which makes rule 3 superfluous, if by 'figures' they mean digits. Full stops are out. Apostrophes aren't mentioned, so they are presumably acceptable. And though they do ban exclamation marks, they don't appear to have any issue with question marks (though I haven't seen any names using one). I wonder if anyone has tried to include parentheses/brackets in a name, since they're not explicity disallowed? And they don't have anything to say about lower or uppercase or spacing, though I don't suppose they'd allow anyone to register "red rum" or "anthonyvandyck", for example. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Apostrophes are definitely OK, A'Ali a decent performer in sprint races this year as an example. I've never seen a horse name all in lowercase, but theoretically it could happen. I think the catch-all is that the BHA reserve the right to refuse any name so they could effectively ban things without making it explicit in their rules.--Bcp67 (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
The Jockey Club in the USA has a specific list - See here The Jockey Club Rule Book Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. It's intriguing that they don't have the long list of exclusions that we see in the BHA rules, but in practice no horse names seem to take advantage of that broader latitude, except for full stops (e.g. Honor A.P.. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Every breed registry gets to make its own rules. Some breeds require all names to be unique, but don’t ban commercial identification (other than certain blatent trademark violations) so many people add random letters to the beginning of all their horse names to “brand” their farm (for example, all the horses bred by Bazy Tankersley have “AM” as a prefix, for Al-Marah, the ranch she owned) And I really have to share what happens when you allow numbers in horse names. Central European horse breeds, especially Lipizzans and breeds from Hungary, are rife with this stuff. And I think most registries banned playing around with capitalization on papers at the dawn of the computer age, they just put everything in all caps and a letter is a letter. Montanabw(talk) 06:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Horse racing".