Talk:Budweiser Clydesdales

Tossed merge tag, references to the Budweiser Clydesdales are already in the other article to the extent article consensus will allow. (Which is to say, very little--there have been edit wars over this issue there, believe it or not) This hitch is independently notable and the article would be better off being expanded. Montanabw^(talk) 06:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Origin

When visiting this excellent place some years ago, i'm pretty sure that i read in here that the Clydesdale team was originally from the Genesee Brewing Company, and bought by A-B for Budweiser around the middle or end of WWI. Obviously this does not correlate with this article; does anyone have any information on this? I'd go and verify from the Museum, but i don't live here any more, having moved. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 12:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Source for end of prohibition intro came from the Anheuser-Busch site, but it's possible they got the idea from elsewhere, they probably weren't the first brewery to use Clydes as a promotional team... do some digging if you'd like, be interesting. Montanabw^(talk) 03:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Anheuser-Busch's own website is not the best source for information. Nor is the Busch Gardens site. Please use other references where possible. -Freekee (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In the world of WP:V, there are times a site dedicated to the topic is a good source, other times it is potentially biased. This simply means that one must seek the best available sources. However, in this case, the web sites for the company ARE probably the best sources for statistical information such as how many animals are at their farms, how animals make the hitch, the qualifications for the hitch, etc. The history section can undoubtably be enhanced by additional sources, but as far as when the company itself premiered the hitch and what they did with it, the company source is apt to be reasonably authoritative as far as it goes. I certainly think that if people can find additional sources that are accurate and verifiable, that would certainly improve the article. However, there is no need to throw out existing sources just because they are company sources. Anyone want to do more research and such is great with me. Montanabw^(talk) 17:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Commercials

Are the YouTube links to commercials featuring the Budweiser Clydesdales really necessary? I seem to recall that Wikipedia eschews YouTube links unless they're absolutely integral to the article. --MicahBrwn (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Maybe not absolutely necessary, (grin) but I think helpful. In general, wiki's policy suggests that external links are appropriate for things that can't be placed on wiki due to copyright restrictions, which I am sure there are here, and we really do need at least a few commercials as examples, as after all, it's the TV thing that made them famous. I'm not a huge fan of YouTube in general, but I had trouble finding anything better (some other sites, but iffy downloads, not compatible in all viewers, etc...). If we could find a link to, say, a link within Anheuser-Busch's web site with many of these commercials, particularly the original one, I agree that would be better than YouTube. But I'd sure like to keep the most of them, and in the meantime, I feel they do no harm. Besides, I bet you watched them, didn't you? (LOL!) Montanabw^(talk) 21:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to Wikipedia:YOUTUBE, the acceptability of linking to YouTube videos are to be determined on a case-by-case basis. And judging by the criteria used, it seems to be appropriate. Still, I don't think every single one of those ads are necessary for inclusion. Two or three super-notable ads (like the one with the zebra as a referee), sure … but not all of them. Just IMHO. --MicahBrwn (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but we haven't linked ALL of them by any means! LOL! There were three different ones just in the 2009 Super Bowl! LOL! I suppose we really don't need the streaker one...but it's so goofy! (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 20:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel that a list of every Super Bowl commercial that can be found on YouTube qualifies as a proper set of external links. Per WP:YOUTUBE, while it's not a deal-breaker that it's from YouTube, 1. those links may technically violate copyright, 2. they could be pulled at any time, and 3. while having a few of them might be illustrative (e.g., the "original" one), a mass linkage to YouTube does NOT satisfy WP:EL. umrguy42 17:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, "it's so goofy" is NOT a reason for inclusion, sorry. umrguy42 17:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, "a few might be illustrative" works for me. A bit of narrowing might be fine. As I noted before, there is not "every" ad up there even now. It's a representative sample. The original "here comes the King" one needs to stay, some of the more unique concepts should remain, (The non-Superbowl ones, maybe concepts going from hitch commercials to animal actor ones -- i.e. keep the zebra, lose the donkey? The use of the foals, perhaps, etc.) and one or two recent ones need to stay. I used the criteria "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." Here, the "other reasons" include detail, copyright, and relevance -- they illustrate the way they are best known to the most people (I've seen the live hitch maybe twice in my life?) and also YouTube is needed because Anheuser-Busch has not chosen to archive them anywhere that I can find. Montanabw^(talk) 19:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

new photo

I just uploaded this photo: File:Budweiser-team aug2009.jpg, in case anyone thinks it would be a good addition to the article. -Freekee (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

NICE photo! Thanks for the tip! Montanabw^(talk) 17:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Do they still haul beer?

Do the crates in the wagons have bottles of beer or are they empty? Bizzybody (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Good question, I suppose their web site would have an FAQ with that information. If you find out, do pop the link in here, it's interesting detail. Montanabw^(talk) 19:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a link, but I've heard that they do carry crates full of beer to actually give enough weight (that full hitch could easily take off with just an empty wagon). umrguy42 17:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

More sources

Some stuff from 2013 discussing the farms and upbringing of the Clydes:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU92XeqhRSA
• http://www.kvoa.com/news/budweiser-s-super-bowl-ad-shows-new-clydesdale-foal/
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vmh9kybZEY ABC story

Problems with the article

In one place, the articles states there are 3 traveling teams. Elsewhere it's stated that there are 5 teams. There's also two different lists of home locations. Would be nice if this could be clarified. Thanks. --208.14.216.12 (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Check the citations, if you see where the correction can be made, go ahead and fix it - and clean up the cite, if needed. The corporate changes have made the article outdated in a couple spots, it's been tweaked, but I don't have the time to work on this article I once did, so fixing any other errors is always useful. Montanabw^(talk) 19:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this. The herd has been downsized since AB sold Busch Gardens. The references that refer to Busch Gardens are no longer valid. I removed the most obvious offending material. Americasroof (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's better to tag it and fix it than to just dump it, updating is work, but we are all in it together! Montanabw^(talk) 21:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I see you restored the inaccuracies. I earlier edited it to update the reduction in herd. The reference before I updated it was from Busch Gardens which Busch hasn't owned for some time and so the Budweiser Clydesdales are not there. What I deleted was superfluous. I haven't taken information out other than what was inaccurate and will never be accurate.Americasroof (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I restored - but with TAGS - we need to update the number of hitches, their headquarters locations, etc... not just dump this important material. In your earlier edit, you threw out citations and didn't replace them. I'm not disputing that you are probably right, but we need sources and verification Go do some research and back up your changes with cited material. I'm good with improving the article, but not by removing important information and not having citations to back up the statements made, that's all. Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess by your argument it's best to keep inaccurate and unreferenced material in an article long after it's clearly defined as wrong. The references I removed are no longer valid because of a company change. The material I removed is not substantive to the article and I would rather have an accurate article rather than restoring things to the way we wish they could be. I'm from Missouri. I wish AB still had its world headquarters there and had its considerable empire but times have changed. The article after your restorations is flat wrong and inconsistent. Why are you telling me to find the references to support your inaccurate edits? If you strongly believe your edits are correct then YOU find the references. If YOU can't find the references the material should be deleted.Americasroof (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Because of WP:BURDEN -- the person who wants the changes has the burden of finding a way to do so that is acceptable. Tags flag material to be fixed. Then someone is supposed to fix it. Just removing things without a good faith effort to replace the source material is, IMHO, lazy. Don't get upset about this, I have 3000 articles on my watchlist, am actively writing a new article in my sandbox, am upgrading another to GA with a team of editors, and have other fish to fry. Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW I see you have made a good faith effort to find the references. The bottom line is that they are now in three different locations across the country. However the Missouri situation is a little complicated. More than half the total herd is at Boonville. However, there are some Grant's Farm in St. Louis and a hitch at the St. Louis brewery itself. The other herds are based at Fort Collins, Colorado and Merrimack, New Hampshire. There's no reference to any other herds including Texas. InBev has considerably reduced and consolidated AB operations.Americasroof (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT -- properly. Find the sources and put them in. You clearly know this material, so finding a source to back it up should be pretty easy. Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Soap content

I checked out two external-link websites which were not marked as commercial--and they were both pushing the beer brand! That makes 12 out of 12 commercials. Not really what Wikipedia is all about. Lovely images in some of them, but still blatant advertising, no worthwhile information. I recommend ditching the whole section. What do others think? Bjenks (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well duh! The Budweiser Clydesdales themselves are kept, trained, and travel to advertise beer! The whole article is about a commercial enterprise to promote beer but inthe process, also breed some truly high-quality animals. Get a grip, please. The commercials are examples of the uses of these animals, but obviously cannot be used on wiki. Montanabw^(talk) 00:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Per MTBW. That's what this group of horses are, an ad gimmick for beer. We can't use the actual commercials, but you these horse ARE wiki notable and you can't talk about them without talking about Budweiser Beer. PumpkinSky talk 01:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it agreed—"obviously cannot be used on wiki"? Then I propose removing all but one, per the MoS guidelines on advertising, collections of external links and Minimizing the number of links. I think the one to keep is the 9/11 one, which shows the horses off well with minimal advertising content. Bjenks (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

IThe commercials can't be used and they aren't. I didn't say they couldn't be linked to. Drop the stick. External links are not references so the reliable refs argument is hogwash. PumpkinSky talk 09:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Commercials meant to advertise cannot be used on Wikipedia, but pics of these horses are not being used to advertise. Intent is the issue. The intent is to educate not advertise, and the pics showing the animals in different situations educate. I doubt anyone is going to buy beer because they come to a wikipedia page where there are pictures of horses used and bred for an advert campaign. The article is about advertising but is not advertising.(olive (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

• Those links? Every single one of those Youtube links? They are copyright violations. Wikipedia can not link to copyright-violating content, and per WP:COPYLINK they have been removed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Your edit summary on your tag team edit war is nonsense. Someone did say something about refs. As for Youtube, they don't allow copyvios, so IF your claim is true, why are they still on youtube? IF your claim is true, have to bitched to youtube? If they remove the videos from youtube that'd solve the problem quite readily. Go to the alleged source, or do you not really care about copyvios and are just here to stir up a wiki shitstorm? PumpkinSky talk 15:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • There is no "tag-team edit warring"; there is removal of links to copyright violations. Wikipedia is not Youtube and we are not Youtube's copyright police; however, by Wikipedia policy, we can not link to copyright violations or to likely copyright violations, as that makes Wikipedia guilty of contributory copyright infringement. Also please do not make assumptions of bad faith that border on personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I've been following this discussion tangentially, and Wikipedia:Video links#Use states "Videos of newscasts, television shows, films, music videos, advertisements, etc. should be considered to be copyright violations if not obviously uploaded by the copyright holder." (Underline added by me.) I don't have the luxury of going to youtube currently, so my question is: a) Is the youtube video obviously uploaded by the copyright holder? and b) Are you sure that person holds the copyright? Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.217.189 (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • EDIT: Just realized that is just an essay, but still the questions might help. Rgrds. --64.85.217.189 (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Some of the videos were uploaded by "BudweiserMedia" on Youtube, but not all, and there is no indication that "BudweiserMedia" is actually affiliated with Budweiser as opposed to being a fan who ripped the commercials from a recording. As we can't confirm that they are uploaded by Anheuser-Busch we cannot link to them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

YouTube routinely removes copyright violations (just try to find bootleg versions of any music video that last longer than about 24 hours, they are quickly tossed). Keep in mind too, that these video clips, being low-resolution as a rule, would probably even pass wiki's fair use guidelines. It is Anheuser-Busch's responsibility to enforce its copyright at YouTube, not ours. Clearly, per WP:EL, these are appropriate links: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." Also, "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites" I have searched the Anheuser-Busch site(s) extensively and can find no link to these commercial clips other than on YouTube. I initially put up only a couple of commercials as examples, but it became apparent rather quickly that there was really no way to pick a single "representatve" commercial because they are generally quite unique. Frankly, this is really quite absurd. Montanabw^(talk) 23:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Look, if this is fair use, try to upload just one of them Wikpiedia servers in their YouTube condition and see what happens... I guarantee they would be deleted as clear copyright violations. Obfuscating the violation behind a link changes nothing: YouTube cannot be assumed to have permission to publish these, not their uploaders, which mean we're violated copyright by linking to it, not to mention violating WP:ELNEVER. Just as we can't link to unofficial hosts of music videos or television episodes, television commercials fall under the exact same restrictions. DKqwerty (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. WP:COPYLINK is quite clear. If you can link to versions of these advertisements actually uploaded by Budweiser then all well and good, but as I said in my last edit summary, I will block anyone else that violates that policy by restoring links to copyvios. Please don't do it. Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• BTW, the ABCNews video just linked is fine. Black Kite (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Here's a somewhat trickier question: the NFL hosts a selection of Super Bowl commercials on their website, here. One of them is a Clydesdale commercial, could we link to that? I would assume that the NFL has licensed all the clips they host on their website, but it doesn't explicitly say so. The Call of Cthulhu (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think that would probably be OK. If it's on the NFL site they've presumably licensed it from Budweiser. Black Kite (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a little note to all involved... I made a small copy edit to the article in the midst of all this reverting, and my changes got caught up in the mix too. In the future, when reverting, please make sure that you are only reverting what you intend to, and not other editor's changes. The 'undo' option might be better if you need to revert an edit that is not the most recent one. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 12:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I might add, please remember WP:AGF. Much of this drama could be avoided if people were a bit more polite. DKquerty and Bjenks were behaving (not saying you are, just saying you behaved...) like a couple of prissy, condescending little trolls, I have over 3000 pages on my watchlist and I have no time and no use for such nasty attitudes, when people who have never touched an article suddenly do massive removals of material with snotty edit summaries, they get reverted. My understanding of WP:EL was made in good faith and I still am not entirely convinced that these cannot be used under a fair use claim, but I haven't the time to do uploads and test this, but more to the point I also have no interest in a block- (really Black Kite, I've edited over 7 years and have a 100% clean block record, show some respect, please. Your approach is akin to templating the regulars) Cthulu had a far more polite approach and a more logical explanation. I'm sick and tired of people who just go around reverting things and can never get off their lazy ass to find something better to replace what they delete. conversation . The ad from the 1960s is particularly rare to find and it is a significant contribution. I've never tried to upload video to WP under a fair use tag, but that is one I think is worth looking at. Montanabw^(talk) 17:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So will these cause more drama?

Will video commercials posted on any of these sites pass muster? Yea or nay from those of you who raised this issue in the first place, help out, don't just complain, please. Montanabw^(talk) 18:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• http://adland.tv/commercials/budweiser-clydesdale-and-mouse-2001-060-usa (note interesting disclaimer, "archived for educational use...") note copyright language on page also
• http://geocommercials.com/superbowl/2008/550-budweiser-2008-clydesdale-training#.UioXPxbF_kc (and any other links from this geocommercials site, which has some sort of copyright claim on it)
• http://thefw.com/?submit_button=&s=super+bowl+commercials
• http://mediagallery.usatoday.com/Anheuser-Busch's-winning-Super-Bowl-ads/G1990 (images only)
• http://www.horsenation.com/2013/02/03/one-post-10-years-of-budweiser-clydesdale-superbowl-awesomeness/ (has commercial sponsor) Possibly link to page, contains multiple videos?
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/super-bowl-commercials-2012-budweiser-clydesdales_n_1255145.html

I'll look for more but these old ads are damn hard to find. Quite curious about the "educational use" aspect of this. Seems to fall within fair use. Montanabw^(talk) 18:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• All of those are hosted by entities uninvolved with Budweiser or Anheuser-Busch, nor can the users who posted them be assumed to be. In fact, the second link is just an embedded YouTube video. Take a look at the link posted by The Call of Cthulhu here as an example of a copyrighted commercial unambiguously provided by the copyright holder. Further, "educational use" means by an educational institution; It is not "educational" to provide links to things such as music video or TV commercials in a Wikipedia article unless the specific commercial has a specific need on the page, and doesn't violate WP:COPYLINK/WP:ELNEVER in the process (i.e. "it exists so we should link to it" is not fair use). DKqwerty (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• • Well, "uninvolved" actually, you could say the same for the NFL and ABC stuff that WAS OK'd. Frankly, you don't have any credibility with me anyway, DKquerty, but I'd like to hear what Black Kite and Call of Cthulhu have to say. Montanabw^(talk) 18:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • THere's a huge difference between "fair use" and "copyright violation". I'm very busy tonight (it's my eldest daughter's 14th birthday) but I'll have a look at all these tomorrow. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • Thank you, Black Kite. No rush. I may dig up a few more. Montanabw^(talk) 18:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • • The ABC piece was clearly uploaded by [ABC itself], and as the content owner, they have the rights to do that - meaning we can link to it (even though it was uploaded to YouTube - the difference is that it was uploaded legally). Likewise, the NFL very likely has Budweiser's permission to allow the Superbowl ad to be viewed on NFL.COM. Some random guy on YouTube who did a screen capture of his DVR recording does not have permission to upload those videos to YouTube, and in the process makes YouTube guilty of copyright infringement. That's the difference. Does that make it any more clear? Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not stupid, Liv. I am aware of that. (Also, technically, ABC doesn't "own" the copyright, they are uploading with permission, ditto NFL. Or at least, we have a good argument that they think they have permission, that they really are who they say they are and it isn't a fake site, yada, yada, yada... one can get as paranoid as they'd like, of course) ) But what you fail to grasp is that I did a lot of hunting to find what was up originally; there were MANY (many, many) other links I looked at where the video WAS removed with the "this video is no longer available" or some other indication of copyright claim tag on it. I figure that AB company is pretty aggressive about protecting their copyright and anything that lasts on YouTube more than a few years didn't raise a red flag. (It can't take them more than five minutes to do a word search, they clearly do so a lot already...) I am particularly interested in trying to preserve those really old ads from the 60s and 70s, somehow. Montanabw^(talk) 19:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Editing the "Traveling Hitches" section

Rather than start another edit war, I thought I'd bring this up for discussion...

1) The locations that the teams are based is not necessary in this section, as the exact same list of 3 locations appears earlier in the article in the "Location" section:

The three Clydesdale teams that tour the world are based near the company's brewing facilities in St. Louis, Fort Collins, Colorado, and Merrimack, New Hampshire.[5][8]

Pick one place, or the other to have this information, but don't repeat it twice.

2) The wording here is difficult. The word "team" has two meanings. The first is the common usage (a football team, a debate team, etc.) which means "all the members of the club, including alternates". But when talking about horses, the word "team" has a very specific meaning: it's the horses that are actually hitched up and pulling the load. It gets confusing because the two "alternate" horses are part of the "common usage team" (they travel, they presumably are groomed, they have harnesses, etc...) but they are not part of the "equine team" hooked up to the truck. I reworded this section as I did to try to remove some ambiguity. "There are ten horses in that travel on each team." makes it sound like there are 10 horses pulling the wagon. I'd like to change it back to the wording I had:

There are eight horses in harness on each team; two additional horses travel with each team to provide alternates for the hitch as needed.

Then there's the problem that the reference doesn't say this... It says that there are 10 horses traveling, and anyone with two eyes can count to 8 and surmise that there are two horses still in the van, but the fact that they are specifically tapped as "alternates" isn't supported by any source.

Thoughts are welcome... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Livitup, the article probably needs a little updating since the InBev purchase of Anheuser-Busch, as it was accurate at the time written but some links have changed and they have reorganized their operation over the last few years. (Selling off Busch Gardens was huge...) But as for the article, first off, anything in the lede MUST be also mentioned and sourced elsewhere in the article per WP:LEAD, so that is inherently redundant. The "locations" and the "traveling hitches" repetition is a real conundrum; I think it wound up in there twice because "drive-by" people kept re-adding it if it wasn't in both. I really am not sure the best approach to solve this elegantly, it's also kind ofawkward to say things like "from the three locations noted in the above section." Ideally, we could add detail in the traveling hitches section if we could find a source that says that the Colorado hitch tours the west, the St. Louis hitch tours the south andmidwest adn teh new Hampshire hitch handles the east coast... that's relevant to that section, allows brief mentioning the hitch homes in the Location section (so people don't keep adding locations there instead of below) ... so feel free to see if you can find this(?) The eight and ten horse alternates thing WAS in the old Busch gardens FAQ. The new one contains most of the same info but is reworded (and note, I moved the location of the citation to reflect this. Tag if it is giving you heartburn, but really, WP:POPE applies, as "anyone with eyes" can indeed count. Gotta be able to find the alternates thing somewhere, I just really do have other fish to fry at the moment... Montanabw^(talk) 18:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)