Talk:California Chrome/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Statistics table

The table of statistics could use a template for each row, which could be made to emit microformat metadata (in this case, hCalendar). That would also make editing easier. The same template could be used on other articles. For an example, see {{Historic building row}}, as used on List of police stations in the West Midlands. Ping me if I can help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I have absolutely no clue how to do that, can you provide an example here on the talk page that I can just copy and paste into this article? Maybe take the stats for the top of the chart and the first two races?? Montanabw(talk) 20:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I've made a start, with an example at {{Horse stats table header/doc}}. There's some work still to do, including making it sortable. See what you think. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll go take a peek and comment further there. Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 01:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GAN Review here
This review is transcluded from Talk:California Chrome/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 21:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this over the next few days having seen your comment at the Wikicup talk page. Jamesx12345 21:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  • "racehorse bred in California. He won the 2014" - "racehorse bred in California and winner of the 2014..." - lots of short sentences in intro.
    • You're right that it was a bit choppy. I did a bit of rewriting and brought up a bit more material from the article into the lead. Better? --MTBW
      • I did some more editing, and put some facts into what I think is a more logical order.
  • As a young man, the elder Sherman..." - I don't think this is important enough to go here. Creating a stub for Art Sherman would probably make more sense.
    • Well, I hope to do so, however, the Swaps connection is one of the biggest things in the human interest story about this horse. To not mention it is to leave out one of the most interesting parts of the story. I think I'll stick to my guns about keeping this in. --MTBW
      • OK.
  • Second paragraph of the intro, a "He" could be replaced with California Chrome.
    • Took the one in the second sentence. Better? --MTBW
      • Yes.
  • "California Chrome is owned by Perry..." - some of the text here needs a bit of a copy-edit to make it a bit smoother.
    • Did I catch that in the lead tweaking I mentioned above? --MTBW
      • "Martin & Coburn are also his breeders, they own Love the Chase." doesn't feel quite right. It is also a bit unclear whether Martin & Coburn refers to one or both of each couple.
          • Yeah, officially, it's just the men, but their wives get listed in some of the articles. I'll fix the infobox and clarify the language. In horse racing land, the "breeder" is the person who owns the mare at the time she foals. I'll reword. Better? --MTBW
      • That's fine.
  • "a business that tests high-reliability equipment" - I'd remove this.
    • I'll think about that; the phrase "high-reliability equipment" seems to pop up in every profile on these people, though; I think they do stuff for the military. This Perry Martin has been quoted as saying they test the kind of things that if the equipment fails "people die"... Do you have any suggestions as to how maybe we can rephrase rather than remove? --MTBW
      • Could you find a source for "military equipment"? I think that might be more precise.
        • I went out to their web site and took a look there, added the version reported from the UT San Diego article, looks like they have a GSA contract, but they haven't updated their web site since 2004, so I kind of split the difference. Will that work? --MTBW
      • Looks fine now. Thanks. Jamesx12345 08:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "Blinkers On Racing Stable dissolved" - sounds a bit odd. "Blinkers On Racing Stable was dissolved" makes it sound a little more deliberate.
    • OK Fixed. --MTBW
  • There is a lot of use of {{cite web}} when it should really be {{cite news}}. Provided they all look the same, however, its not a problem at all for a GAN but an FA reviewer might think otherwise.
    • Heh, you are probably right, but if it's OK with you, I'll save it for FA -- I will be adding more sources if I take it there. (Basically, if this horse wins either the Derby or one of the other Triple Crown races, I'll probably bring it to FA, otherwise, may leave it as is, we'll see.)--MTBW
      • OK - sounds good.
  • "junior" should be "Junior"
    • Fixed. --MTBW
  • "The horse was the first Kentucky Derby..." - this sentence is much longer than the others around it, and stands out a lot. Some more copyediting wouldn't go amiss here.
    • Fiddled with that a little. Better? --MTBW
      • Yup.
  • "he was assigned" - a note about this would be useful for many readers.
    • Fixed that a little bit. Reworded. Better? --MTBW
      • Yes.
  • "ran on lasix for the first time in his career." - a brief note here would also be nice.
    • I can understand that this may be a "huh?" to non-horse racing people, but a "brief note" is a sticky wicket, & I'm not sure I feel comfortable going much beyond what's there ... lasix in race horses is quite controversial because in the USA it is generally legal to administer even though it is widely viewed as a performance-enhancing drug --"officially" it is given to them to keep them from bleeding from the lungs while running. There is no source out there says why this horse didn't have lasix before his fourth race or why they started then. (FWIW, I'd guess that about 95%+ of all race horses in the USA run on lasix) I'm not sure what kind of "brief note" you are thinking of that wouldn't mean I'd have to dip my toe into a pond that I'm not sure is safe for wading... WP:OR and WP:SYNTH applies - we have no RS to tell us why the trainer made this decision.  ;-) --MTBW
      • Saying "the medication" nicely defers any controversy. I imagine that discussions about that kind of thing don't tend to get written down and put on the internet. Jamesx12345 12:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
        • OK, looks like you got that, all OK now? --MTBW

Jamesx12345 11:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jamesx12345: I think I have addressed or at least answered everything you have raised above. Please take a look at what I've done and let me know what further work I can do to improve this article to GA. Montanabw(talk) 08:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jamesx12345: OK, I think I've got it. Will check in again tonight to do any cleanup needed before this can be passed (deadline toay for wikicup! Yikes!) Montanabw(talk) 00:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy that this article can be passed for GA now, and thanks for the speedy responses. If there is a chance that you could look at Sinclair Sovereign before the deadline that would be brilliant, but I need to get another GA off the ground today (I'm thinking about the Cruachan) to get make that happen. Jamesx12345 08:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Stats and snark

This isn't Franz Kafka (wikipedia's record TFA page for hits in one day), but this article is getting a lot of traffic: [1]. Alerting everyone who has this article watchlisted that we are apt to see another round of vandalism around May 17, the day of the 2014 Preakness Stakes. In the meantime, this is the current "stable" version (pun intended) let's see how often wiki gets cribbed by the media from here forward! (Bwahahahaha) Montanabw(talk) 17:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Difficult foaling

Seems like him being 137 pounds did a number on Love the Chase. She had a uterine tear (!) after the foaling and the extra handling (she didn't reject him either !) that he had as a foal may be the reason he is a people-horse. [2] Love the Chase was bred to a Brazilian stallion (Redattore) first before Lucky Pulpit, so it might have turned out differently. Froggerlaura ribbit 05:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Saw that, you want to add a bit on it? I was going to, but the more the merrier. Also the mare had a "breathing problem", probably that condition that causes roaring??? Montanabw(talk) 05:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Preakness pictures

The Preakness pictures have been loaded into the Commons California Chrome category. Froggerlaura ribbit 15:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! I think we were working on that at the same time, but luckily only duplicated two! Much appreciated. Montanabw(talk) 18:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Traffic notes

Just an FYI to all who have this page watchlisted: We had 25K+ hits after the Derby, 35K+ hits on Preakness day and another 50,000 hits (1) today: [3]. This article is getting high traffic. Please be on the watch for vandals and also for well-meaning but inept editing by enthusiastic newbies. If any doubt, look for edits by myself, @Froggerlaura:, @Tigerboy1966: of wikiproject horse racing if you are trying to find a "last clean" version. I'll do my best to keep every edit that improves the article, but sometimes sorting through 50 edits one at a time gets a bit tedious, so mea culpa in advance to anyone who gets caught up in this maelstrom! Montanabw(talk) 03:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Informal peer review comments

Kelapstick's comments

Per a request on my talk page, I am just having a go at reading this, checking to see if the Man on the Bondi Tram would understand. I will be adding continuously, so no need to reply till I am finished.

  • Lead, paragraph 2 - It would be nice if there was a link to Dam. I could infer with it is but had never heard the terminology before., right now there isn't a WP page, but maybe to Wictionary, if that is permitted.
    • Never mind, you have a link lower down in the paragraph, maybe juts move it.
  • Lead is generally readable with a minimal knowledge of horse racing, other than the comment directly above, nothing I would change.
  • Background section:
    • Foaled is a little odd, but not bad, just not a term I am used to. The context explains it.
    • As a two- and three-year-old filly looks like you hav a spacing issue there
        • "two- and three-year-old was intentional that your concern or is something else messed up? --MTBW
          • Do you have an space between the first hyphen and the word "and" intentionally?
                • Yes, it's a format I believe is correct when using "and" in this context, it's a shorter way than the clunky alternative "as a two-year-old filly and as a three-year-old filly ;-) But I'm open to a better way to do any of this stuff. --MTBW
    • won on her fourth try in a maiden claiming race - what is a maiden claiming race?
            • Wikilinked to appropriate places, is that better? --MTBW
  • Ownership section seems fine.
  • Early years section seems fine.
--kelapstick(bainuu)  15:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

--kelapstick(bainuu) 21:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Good comments, I will work on them. If wikilinking fails to be adequate, feel free to post more follow up comments too! Thank you! Montanabw(talk) 18:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kelapstick:, I think I got what you were concerned about, but let me know if I didn't. Look at the stuff on racing career and let me know what's total gibberish as opposed to normal sportswriter talk ;-) Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 00:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I will have a look, I won't be able to be as thurough as I am heading home tomorrow for ten days, and don't usually edit during that time. But I will have a glance tonight to see how it looks. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
In general the race section is pretty good, there is no real technical jargon that either wasn't wikilinked or easy enough to figure out. There are some structure issues that I am surprised made it through GA review (or maybe they were added after). But as far as easy to read for non-horse people, I think it is fine. --kelapstick(bainuu)
@Kelapstick: Thank you. I've added a lot since the GAN, so feel free to point out the "structural issues" that concern you. I'm at that "have looked so long at the article I can't see it." stage. I've taken two race horse articles to FAC and eventually plan to do so with this one once the dust settles on the triple crown season, so my skin is pretty thick when it comes to this.  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 17:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem, I don't mind, and enjoyed reading it. The race sections were exciting, lots of build up I found, which I liked. Problems I saw were some run on sentences (lots of commas, for which I am often guilty) and the use of "coincidentally", where I didn't see a coincidence. I am flying out today, and moving my trailer to its "summer home", so I won't be active for a week and a half, if it hasn't been reviewed by then I will have a look again.--kelapstick(bainuu) 17:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Some comments for improvement

Per request, here is my review of the article:

I made numerous tweaks. Most notably, you used pronouns too much which can make it unclear who "he" is after a while. In general, the article is bordering on too much information. I have listed some examples I'd remove, although I have not made any changes along this lines (except removing one sentence that appeared twice in the same paragraph.

  • The lead credits the wives as owners, while the body says they are not.
    • You are right, I have to figure out how to include their significant input, though. --MTBW
  • "As a young man, the elder Sherman was the exercise rider for the 1955 Kentucky Derby winner, Swaps, another California-bred horse" - I doubt this important enough to mention in the lead, as this is not an article about Sherman.
    • You might be right, as we look over the lead, it may be OK to toss. --MTBW
  • "He’s not just our horse" quote - quotes are discouraged in the lead, so removal is suggested; if not, it should be directly cited.
    • That I'd like to keep; it's directly cited in the body of the text, the "people's horse" bit is highly significant, need to figure out how to keep it in there. --MTBW
      • This is an MOS issue, so if the intention is to try for FA it will need to be changed. If not, it's fine... looks like you already fixed the issue by including just "the people's horse" bit. --ThaddeusB (talk)
  • General comment - the lead could better summarize the article. There is perhaps too much details on the Derby+Preakness (for example the "minor media frenzy" and dates of movement) and likely not enough on the horse's unusual ownership/early life (i.e. cheap price, inexperienced owners, etc.), which isa big part fo the story.
    • You are right, the lead was mostly done prior to the Kentucky Derby, and I agree we need to redo it a bit now. I will probably wait until after the Belmont to take a real big whack at it, though, as we will need "the rest of the story." --MTBW
  • I changed the section to "overview" as that seems a better decsriptor of the content (backgroun is generally material not directlky related to the subject that is necessary to understand it)
    • We have several thousand race horse biographies that start with "Background," I am reluctant to alter the standard layout. It IS "background" on the horse, not directly related to his racing career. --MTBW
      • In that case, it should definitely stay as "background". My mistake (I do not normally edit horse articles specifically). --ThaddeusB (talk)
  • "It is a problem that can be corrected with surgery" - seems like a needless aside.
    • Her owners had the surgery done, but I can't find a RS to cite to it, it was in a blog post or something. Pointing out it's not genetic is also relevant. I'd like to let that sit for a little bit; might be able to improve it the next time Arrington at the Sacramento Bee does another profile piece, she's the best source on that stuff. --MTBW
      • If the intent is to show it is not genetic, perhaps something like "she had been racing with a non-hereditary breathing problem". Some hereditary problems can be corrected with surgery, so I had idea that was the intent. --ThaddeusB (talk)
        • Well, true, but sourcing that will be a bear per WP:SYNTH, and actually that's not even the main thing, the big thing is that she's apparently a much happier horse now. I think I 'll keep this in the back of my mind as something to improve upon and see if there is a better fix before going to FAC. --MTBW
Early years
  • Stud fee - A lot of press sources say $2,000, some even saying it was a reduced fee; perhaps a footnote is in order to note this is an error (which explanation if possible)
    • The best and most reliable sources say $2500, Blood-Horse in particular.
      • I too think $2,500 is correct. I was suggesting a footnote to point out the error in RS with an explanation, if one exists; a hidden comment would also work. --ThaddeusB (talk)
        • Hidden text added
  • "Junior" nickname mentioned twice (here & overview); one should be removed
    • Will fix. Only see it now in lede and early years, did someone toss the extra one? --MTBW
  • "The Coburns had begun treating Love The Chase " - "treating" sounds like somethign medical instead of "giving treats to", suggest rephrasing
    • Good catch. --MTBW
  • Explanation of "chrome" also mentioned twice (here & overview)
    • Will figure out how to fix that too. Unless it was there and someone tossed it, I don't see two examples other than the lede and the Early years... --MTBW
      • My bad - was probably looking at lead text & thinking it was "background" text when checking where I read that before. --ThaddeusB (talk)
  • The background on Alan Sherman (e.g. details as a jockey) seems unnecessary
    • On this one, I feel pretty strongly about keeping this; he doesn't have his own WP article, seems relevant to his training skills that he knows what it's like to ride as well as train (as did Art Sherman) the reality is that he's probably doing a lot more of the actual work, too. --MTBW
  • "Los Alamitos also took over some of Hollywood Park's racing dates and will host all-Thoroughbred meets for the first time in 2014." - needless aside
    • Maybe, let me think about that; the point is "Chrome stabling there is a big deal for them - I tossed an earlier quote from the owner, might restore it for context. --MTBW
Racing history
  • "Given a six-week break from competition and a move to Del Mar racetrack for his next two races with Alberto Delgado back as his rider, California Chrome won the Graduation Stakes, a race limited to California-bred horses, by ​2 34 lengths." - awkward mention of two races in a sentence about one. Break into two sentences ("Alberto Delgado returned for the next 2 races. After a 6-week break...") or rephrase.
    • Will look at that, good catch. --MTBW
  • "While he again was assigned 120 pounds (54 kg), he wore blinkers and also ran on the medication Lasix for the first time in his career." - while implies a connection between the two clauses, which I am not seeing
    • The blinkers and the lasix both seemed to be contributing factors to his improvement, as there was no change in weight he carrried? Will look at a rephrase --MTBWW
  • "This was his first graded stakes race, the Grade I Del Mar Futurity" - I would think this should be the first thing mentioned about the race, not tacked on at the end.
    • Good point --MTBW
  • "faded to sixth at the end" doesn't seem consistent with had a bad race throughout; perhaps just "and finished sixth"
    • OK, used comments from equibase, but you are right. --MTBW
Kentucky Derby
  • Seems odd to start the section with "he won" and then move on the pre-race stuff.
    • Holdover from earlier versions.
  • "Fisher was brought in to give him a new set of shoes" - seems out of place; perhaps a better spot can be found (not sure).
    • Yeah, maybe not needed, the idea is that the horseshoer is the only one who is allowed to work on the horse's feet, which is kind of interesting; not precisely rare, but not an every day thing, either. --MTBW
  • Whittingham aside is perhaps unneeded
    • We do have an article on Art Sherman, but I kind of like noting the record both places. --MTBW
  • ""I said a little prayer..." needs a direct citation.
    • Dang, something got rearranged, will go find the cite (again)... Was the Childs Walker May 3 piece for both quotes in that paragraph, I switched so that the link goes to the full page version, the "said a little prayer" quote was on p. 2 --MTBW
  • Not sure if the Chromies are worth mentioning
    • Well, we have their own section at the end; but kept the foreshadowing there, not sure how to handle this in the long run, but people dressed in tinfoil IS kind of unique! --MTBW
  • Secretariat's post is irrelevent, and that it was mentioned on twitter is even more so.
    • Not horribly attached to it, but makes for a good tweak of race track superstition. If he wins the Triple Crown, we might want to keep it. --MTBW
      • At the very least, there is no need to mention Twitter - just note the similarity directly. --ThaddeusB (talk)
  • "on the Tuesday following the Preakness" - replace with, or add, the date
    • Will do-MTBW
  • Can we think of a better section title(s) than "other" for this material? Miscellaneous info generally is not included in articles, so this really needs a proper categorization. (I don't object to the actually material here.)
    • I agree, I'm drawing a blank on what to call it, though. --MTBW
  • Jedi quote seems pointless
    • Cute, though! (OK, you're right) --MTBW
  • You should only wikilink the first use of each term
    • When Froggerlaura and RexxS were helping me with the syntax, someone pointed out that the chart is sortable, so the "first instance" could be different depending on the sort order (try sorting by Jockey, for example, or by track) --MTBW
      • It's not a big issue, but I would suggest linking just the first usage in the default sort order. --ThaddeusB (talk)

--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the very through review. I'm taking most of your suggestions now, and may take more of them later. Sometimes I have to chew on something a bit before I chop, as often I can replace it with something better. Stay tuned and please feel free to offer continued thoughts, critiques and such! Montanabw(talk) 21:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, everything is just a suggestion... If the intent is to try for feature article status, my feeling is you are most likely to have doubts on the "stays focused" aspect due to the frequent asides. All these things are interesting, and in a way make the article more comprehensive. At the same time, the article is already over 40k of prose, nearing the maximum recommended size of 50k, and there is potentially a lot more to write about (Belmont, breeding career, etc.) Keep in mind an encyclopedia article should summarize a subject, not give a complete account of it. The fact that Alan Sherman won $1M as a jockey, for example, is of minimal relevance to California Chrome's bio. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
No worries, I like to view it as an informal peer review, as I do plan to run it up the FAC flagpole soon; anything you raise here, someone else is likely to later, so might as wellfix it as it arises.. I do agree that focus matters, I think things will sharpen up after the Belmont, as then we will know if we have the megahorse great winner after 36 years or horse #13 to fall short, and assess what's there so far acccordingly. I also doubt if anyone will give a flying you-know-what about the opossum in another two weeks, LOL! (There's now also a story about the barn cat...the press is bored...) Take a look at my last horse FAC, Mucho Macho Man and maybe use it as a comparison. Montanabw(talk) 03:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Alan Sherman

In the light of the comments above, about his biographical details being excessive here; perhaps a separate article is warranted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure the wiki-gods would bless it under WP:GNG. ThaddeusB created the article on Art Sherman, his dad, and did a good job with it. The problem is that Alan is Art's assistant, and as such has no "official" training record independent of Art's. My personal view is that this guy deserves a lot of credit for his work, but how to do it? Open to ideas. One angle might be do to add Alan to Art's article with a rename so it's a multi-person article, as I did with Albert, Alfred and Chris Schlechten or Russell and Sigurd Varian, but it's clunky and not without its own pitfalls. Plus, I really get the sense the family themselves wants Art to have his time to shine. Montanabw(talk) 03:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Parking stuff

  • Don't think PRWeb is OK as WP:RS, but this was interesting anyway: Another possible explanation for some of his speed is that California Chrome has a stride angle (maximum opening between the front and trailing hind leg) of 100 degrees, the third longest recorded stride angle in Throughbred racing history after Secretariat (110 degrees) and Barbaro (105 degrees).[1]
Primary sources (including press releases) are OK for basic material, but you are right - this is probably not something that should be cited to a primary source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Particularly as it's a commercial source for a place that does stride analysis. It is intriguing, though. Montanabw(talk) 03:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

For later


(I'm respecting the request not to edit.) In this sentence "Though still anxious in the gate, by the Triple Crown races, he had settled down enough to have clean starts." I suspect that the second comma is wrong and should be removed, giving "Though still anxious in the gate, by the Triple Crown races he had settled down enough to have clean starts.". Do you see why? I think the second comma flips the sense to what you do not mean. I'm dashing out to a festival now but will look in later. I hope your horsey does well! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Go for it, that's the little stuff I don't mind seeing fixed! I guess Gerda got it. Montanabw(talk) 15:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


The statistics table is overflowing on the mobile version, so maybe we can somehow make the table shorter or something. Just a suggestion. Buscus 3 (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"Overflowing in what way? Can the columns wrap tighter or something? This format is pretty consistent across all the race horse articles that have charts. Does Oxbow (horse) or Mucho Macho Man have the same problem? (I ask because both of those are featured articles). If it's just this article I'll sure see what I can do, if it's an overall mobile versus computer problem, then we have a bigger issue that will affect a number of articles, I fear... Montanabw(talk) 00:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Coburn's comments

Anyone else watching the NBC coverage of Steve Coburn claiming Chrome was 'targeted by the competition', and his remarks about a 'coward's way out'? This might bring some incoming vandalism, so should we hold off on mentioning it if at all? Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 23:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately, it probably ought to be mentioned, but I agree that for now, it might be worth holding off on mentioning. Although, the article is semi'd, so we might be OK. Go Phightins! 23:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, let's give the analysis a few more hours. There will be more to the story. For now, let's focus on updating the chart with official results and putting in the basics about the race. Equibase still doesn't have a chart up, which is really annoying... Montanabw(talk) 23:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Claire Novak at Blood-Horse wrote a good follow up to the race, there was a lot of assorted drama, Coburn only the most visible. I put in a sentence sort of touching on his remarks, I think that is NPOV enough to not be pussy-footing around it, but also not doing a lot of analysis on its cosmic impact until everything shakes out. The guy is still pissed. A lot of people actually agree with him, but no one really knows what the solution is. Montanabw(talk) 00:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Belmont video

France Sire has a new CC Belmont video [4]. Froggerlaura ribbit 07:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That one has some good shots at about 7:00 of a certain other horse too. @Tigerboy1966:, do you want to pull video clips for that article?? Montanabw(talk) 23:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I pulled some more shots of Lucky Pulpit off the other one (see Lucky Pulpit), it can be a booger to get good resolution; got any advice? Montanabw(talk) 22:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
A second video here. Montanabw(talk) 23:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I tried to pull a still of the finish, but even in high res, it looks like the image is doubled with a green line at the edge. I could try to get some good ones of Tonalist since he holds still longer :) The soundtrack on the first video is really...interesting. Froggerlaura ribbit 06:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC) The second video is not usable since it was not released under a CC license. Froggerlaura ribbit 06:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Tonalist, and for 2014 Belmont Stakes and other articles, perhaps a still and then separately cropped versions of that image of Turcotte, Cruguet, and Cauthen all together. Not sure if all of their articles have images.... I found that Belmont video to be hilarious, that reporter has a good sense of humor! Montanabw(talk) 23:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Updating article notes

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2014

Off the hoof topic resolved

Change: "Because all four of his legs are white, California Chrome's hooves are white as well. Though his feet have generally been healthy, white hooves can be softer than dark-colored hooves,[15] and are thought to be more prone to developing problems.[16]"

To: "Because all four of his legs are white, California Chrome's hooves are white as well. It is a superstition among horsemen that white hooves can be softer than dark-colored hooves,[15] and are thought to be more prone to developing problems.[16] This however, has been debunked by several scientific studies and would have no impact on his hoof health. ^new citation"

The new citation should be:

The previous citations given show that a farrier made the statement that white hooves are softer, not that any science proves this, so they aren't very good citations to begin with, they are purely hearsay. I can make the statement that bulls are enraged by the color red, and this is a long held belief, but that doesn't make it true, as Wikipedia's page on common misconceptions bears out... (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No. That article is in a blog that cites a study done in 1986, it is insufficient for WP:RS. Also, phrases such as "superstition" are unencyclopedic. White hooves ARE a bit softer, anyone who has ever seen a hoof trimming can tell you that. This does not mean that they are "inferior," just that they may have different issues, particularly for horses kept in stalls most of the time, as is done with race horses. If there is a better study, feel free to post it here, and we can take another look at it. Montanabw(talk) 05:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be that there are no structural differences in the hoof wall keratins between white and dark hooves. One of the more recent studies found no difference in shoeing horses with white hooves [5]. Another conformation article [6] references older studies that came to the same conclusion. Froggerlaura ribbit 00:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. Wonder how many horses in the study had both light and dark feet, noting that the one case had different results; that is definitely my own observation, that a horse with both light and dark feet has differences (usually slightly softer white feet) between them. The adage that white feet are inherently inferior is not the point anyone is making here, but wonder about validity of these studies, saw one indicating that white hooves absorbed more moisture, though black hooves could absorb quite a bit also. That 2004 one says "22 shod hooves were obtained for testing" - sounds like cadaver hooves - do you have the full article, were they live horses tested? I suppose we could downplay the white hooves thing here if it ends the drama, but it was an issue raised, so I don't know if that's best. I think it's overkill to view the issue as completely debunked or as a "superstition" as there clearly needs to be more research done. Montanabw(talk) 19:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"ask anyone who has seen a hoof trimming" and"my own observation" are not scientific resources. The article you cite only gives a farrier's statement, not a scientific study. I have a horse with 3 black hooves and a white one, guess which one is the problem? Not the white one... Please find me a study that shows that white hooves are inferior, because from what I've seen all the studies except "your experience" show that they are equal, so your statements are 100% unscientific. There are reasons we use science and not superstition in modern society. Just because you were wearing those particular underwear every time your team has won a football game has nothing to do with why they won it. Please keep wikipedia factual. I don't care if you add in my statement, as long as you remove the old one because there is simply no evidence. This is why we can't have nice things... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  LeoFrank  Talk 11:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Your little blog is not a RS. The article does not state that white hooves are weaker or inferior, nor is it implied. I am not making an argument that the horse has weak feet, we are stating what the trainer himself said. We are going down a rabbit hole per WP:UNDUE to add all your commentary about "debunked" and "superstition" when in fact, the studies are small and though indicate that both colors of feet are similar, they are inconclusive as far as "debunking" (particularly when the same horse has two different colors of feet) due to small samples and lack of clear design (one study sounds like they used cadaver hooves). Even these studies indicate that there ARE a few differences in things like moisture content. Montanabw(talk) 22:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not "my little blog" I have no idea who writes it, and I pointed you to it because it speaks to why farriers and other horse people are reluctant to change their views even when presented with scientific evidence. Basically, because people hate to be wrong. The California Chrome article DOES state that they are more prone to problems, which implies that they are inferior. You are not directly quoting the trainer, so this implies that you are stating it as fact. The links I posted point to scientific studies that show that white and black hooves are structurally the same. You keep complaining that they are old studies, yet you leave the statement about white feet in there even though you have yet to produce a scientific study that backs you up. There are plenty of people who hold all kinds of misconceptions, and it's articles like this that perpetuate old wives tales over actual scientific evidence. This is the same reason people don't vaccinate their children, because they don't understand how science works and they think they are smarter than their doctors. Of the 2 horses currently in my barn, I have an OTTB with 4 black hooves that chip like nobody's business, and a welsh cob who has a white foot which is like iron and the farrier has to work hard to trim it, but one of her black feet has a quarter crack. By your observational logic, black hooves are weak. Thankfully scientists don't rely on weak correlation and anecdotal evidence. Leaving this in here is why professors don't allow wikipedia as a reference for research papers... Here is another study done on white hooves published in 1993

Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —cyberpower ChatOnline 00:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. You can edit this yourself once you provide reliable sources and gain a consensus here among those discussing the request. Please stop reactivating this request. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 01:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
And now you are edit warring. The material you have cited now is by Jaime Jackson, who is a WP:FRINGE practitioner with little credibility in the mainstream. This is most definitely not the place for the "barefooter movement" to start pushing their fringe theories. This article has NONE of your "inferior" rants in it, merely a statement that is sourced about one horse's generally healthy - but white - feet. Read what it says and read the source material. Remove this content again and I am going to report you as a vandal. Montanabw(talk) 04:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It is published in the american farrier journal, so I guess you don't believe articles in medical journals either and rely only on your own anecdotal evidence when it comes to decisions about your medical treatment. Your own citations are about as informative as "we interviewed a hospital orderly, and he said you can catch a cold by standing outside in the rain" the person making the statement is not a medical professional. You have still failed to provide a source other than the trainer's statements that white hooves are softer and more prone to problems which if "more prone to problems" isn't another way of saying "inferior" I don't know what is. Those exact words are in the article and they are what I object to. Your average person is not going to click on the citation and make the judgement "oh, the trainer is saying this and it might be an old wives tale" they are going to take it as fact that white feet are more prone to problems. When you can come back with ANY peer reviewed study, even just one, that says that white hooves are softer or more prone to problems, I will shut up. Otherwise you are abusing your privileges here and inserting your own pseudoscience and agenda. I have no agenda here as a "barefoot movement" person, because I am not one. My OTTB HAS to wear shoes or her feet fall apart, the other one is barefoot most of the time because she has feet like iron other than the quarter crack which we just manage with strategic trimming and she stays sound. I recognize this as a consequence of genetics, and not hoof color, and I realize that some horses have great hooves, and others are probably going to always need shoes, especially competition horses that have unnatural strain placed on them. As someone who is a scientific professional, I can look at evidence subjectively and not just go by tradition or old wives tales. I can't just go by my own opinions or something that someone told me once that may or may not have any evidence behind it. So again, please provide me with ONE STUDY (not just a person's statement) that shows that white feet are "more prone to problems" or "softer" and cite those in the article, and I will stop pestering this board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The American Farrier's Journal is a trade publication, not a "medical" journal and Jaime Jackson is a person who espouses fringe views. Perfect horse is John Lyons' publication. I have looked at the studies that are out there, there are a handful. They indicate, as Froggerlaura noted above, that the structure of white and dark feet is not significantly different: "no structural differences in the hoof wall keratins." But that's as far as they go. One of them does indicate the feet with more moisture are softer and more prone to falling apart. There are no studies that are particularly comprehensive, most have small sample sizes, they don't sound like they used live hoof tissue for some of them and their conclusions are, at best, preliminary. So your frothing and ranting on the topic is not winning me over here. I am not going to argue about our relative credentials because on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Let's just say that I too can read scientific studies, and I can also see when a "scientific" study is not particularly well designed. If it will placate you, I can switch the order of the paragraph so the hoof structure thing is not what leads it, but that's as far as I am willing to go. In this case, verifiability is what we have from the sources cited, and no one is saying the horse has weak feet, in fact, the evidence is the opposite. Montanabw(talk) 23:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Trade journals are still more reputable than your opinion/observations/anecdotes or the superstitious comments of one trainer in a sport full of superstition and tradition. The link that froggerlaura provided indicated only that there was one anomalous white foot in the study. I saw no reference to "more moisture" and being softer, so if you would provide a paragraph number I would be appreciative. I'm not arguing that this is an area that has been exhaustively researched and all scientific conclusions have been made, what I am saying is that thus far, all of the results point to there being no difference between colored and white hooves. You have not yet given me any study that disagrees with that (unless you can provide previously mentioned paragraph numbers and they do in fact confirm your moisture statement) so to leave in the statement as written, even later in the paragraph leads most people reading the article to believe that there have been studies that show white feet are inferior, thus perpetuating the myth. The statement doesn't even have any added value to the article, other than to say that he started to have problems with his feet. The whole part about them being white is completely irrelevant. As for my credentials, I have a masters degree in engineering (yes, I have literally taken "rocket science" and there are classes that are harder than it, so saying "it's not rocket science" is a joke in our field) but I happen to have a background in biology as well and have owned horses my whole life, many of which were OTTBs and were a complete mixed bag of hoof strength even though all of them have had black feet except for the most recent cob cross. If anything, rather than silly rhymes about hoof color, I'd just say don't buy a straight thoroughbred if you want a horse with good feet. And lest you think that I regularly troll the internet spewing my hatred of misinformation, I only came across this when I was looking up info on CC after his loss. I had remembered reading previously that this myth had been debunked, and a quick google search told me that most reputable farriers are no longer telling their clients this, so it bothers me to see it still showing up on places where thousands of people are likely to be influenced by it because they're unlikely to dig any deeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that more study is warranted in the "white hoof" debate, California Chrome is not the right article to either prove or disprove the theory. Since the statement about the hooves is contentious, how about just starting the paragraph as "While in training, California Chrome has had problems with his feet" without going into the debate about why. Froggerlaura ribbit 02:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
No one seems to be reading the actual article or the sources cited. He didn't have problems with his feet, other than low heels (which seems to be a common thing n TBs), the point is that they are careful and care well for his feet. I will do a minor rephrase, but "superstition" is not what we are talking about here, and frankly, we've all got advanced degrees, we've probably all taken some biology classes too (and in my case, equine management, FWIW) and yes, I too have "owned horses all my life." So I am not impressed by some anonymous IP who ctes a fringe theorist. Montanabw(talk) 03:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"No one seems to be reading the sources cited" is EXACTLY the point I was making. If your average wikipedia reader were to look at this article, they would surmise that white feet are more prone to problems a statement that you are still making in the article even though you have changed the order. I agree with Froggerlaura's recommendation, which makes this debate 2 to 1. If you're going to continue to lord your administrative privileges over me just because I was too lazy to create a wikipedia login (and by the way, my anonymous ip is no more anonymous than a username like Montanabw, I have no qualms providing you a link to my linkedin article to establish who I am since if you're crazy enough to try something violent based on that, you could still find me based on my ip). I "cited a fringe theorist" in one article, and while he is an established farrier the other studies does by DVMs that I also linked to back him up, and they are the stronger studies, yet you keep going back to the one study. Unless you are going to say you are a DVM (I'm guessing not or you would have stated as much) last I checked that was the highest qualification for equine practitioners, so unless they all are "fringe" you can't dismiss their studies. And I'm still waiting for the one study that says that white hooves are softer that you keep talking about. STUDY not quote please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw - what you are describing is the difference between science and belief. Many people believe that white hooves are softer or more prone to problems, but that does not mean that science agrees with that belief. A perfect example is religion: There are many people who believe that the world is only a few thousand years old because the bible says so. Scientific study shows otherwise. We would not include that as a statement in an article about the history of our planet and then link back to a quote from a trade journal (in this case bloodhorse, but in the religion example, some christian publication) or the statement of a trainer (in the religion example, a priest/pastor) because it would be misleading and inaccurate. Currently the science contradicts your statement, and for clarity it should not be included as an implied "fact" in this article. Laurelmw (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Bloodhorse and citations, from wikipedia's reliable source page WP:RSOPINION "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says..."." Laurelmw (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edit: "Because all four of his legs are white, California Chrome's hooves are white as well. Though his feet have generally been healthy, it is a commonly held belief among horsemen that white hooves can be softer than dark-colored hooves,[15] and are thought to be more prone to developing problems.[18] The scientific studies that have been completed on the subject have thus far shown that there is no difference between white and dark hooves <>" Hopefully this is a reasonable compromise, or we may have to move to dispute resolution. Laurelmw (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are the same person as the one with the anonymous IP who engaged in the vicious rant above, implying that I am somehow a person who would do you violence. Clearly you haven't been here very long or you would not engage in such personal attacks that have pretty much cost you a lot of goodwill from the outset and made you look less than credible. I am not an administrator, and it was third party who warned you about your behavior. I am not going to engage ina rant about the concept on this article per WP:UNDUE, and to settle the issue I will add precisely what Art Sherman's opinion is and toss the generalized comment, I think I can find a source on that. But you seriously need to chill out here. And, just so you know, at least one of the other editors on this article IS a DVM, so don't assume you are any smarter than anyone else around. Montanabw(talk) 19:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A. Yes I am the same anonymous ip as above, I figured if I was going to be accused of hiding behind an ip, maybe cobbling together a username would remove that complaint about my character. I'm also at work, so my ip would have looked like it was from a different state, so that would have been just as confusing. B. Vicious rant? All I said was I WASN'T scared of sharing that type of information with you, because if you WERE the violent type, it wouldn't matter if all you knew was my ip address anyway because you could find out much more information that way (Just ask the RIAA). There was no personal attack, instead I implied that you were the type of person with which that wouldn't be an issue...As for the third party you referred to, your username was associated with the threat, so I'm not sure how a third party pulled that off. C. You seem to be comfortable acting as an administrator/owner of this page, even though that is not wikipedia's stance, because you are unwilling to listen to myself or froggerlaura's inputs. I have given you well sourced material, but you refuse to even consider any viewpoint but your own. This is why I suggested the dispute resolution process (per D. I would LOVE to hear input from a DVM. I actually asked a recent DVM grad friend of mine this morning whether Cornell was teaching this material or not, but she hasn't gotten back to me yet, so I have nothing further to report. E. This entire time, all I have asked you for is a single study that backs up your statement about white hooves being softer. Could you please link me to said study? Laurelmw (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I have used WP:RSOPINION and quoted Art Sherman directly. Unless you are also 77 years old (I'm not), he's worked with horses longer than both of us, and no doubt more horses than either of us as well, so I'd say he has a credible viewpoint, even if it contradicts a few poorly-designed, inconclusive studies. The rest of the hoof color issue could be discussed at Talk:Horse hoof. We can list all the studies over there, we can try to locate full text of each (all I can access at the moment are the abstracts, which leave many unanswered questions). And I actually do listen to Froggerlaura, who has earned my respect, so please don't drag other people into this. And your tone for item B was really off, we just don't accuse people of things like that here. It's bad manners and generally not copacetic. As for the rest, this article has WP:GA status, which means that certain rules need to be followed for material added and how. I am also giving it a peer review for WP:FA status, and that will tighten it up further. Quality control is not "ownership." I just disagree with you, and your ranting and raving at me, leveling personal attacks and getting all angry doesn't make your case very convincing. Montanabw(talk) 21:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is ranting and raving, this is disagreeing. Age alone does not make one an expert, and plenty of old people hold common misconceptions. Science advances over time. that is the purpose of science, to give evidence for (or to refute) anecdotal claims. I didn't accuse anyone of anything, other than stubbornly holding onto unsubstantiated beliefs. Please post the study you were referring to that called white hooves soft. I am perfectly willing to consider other sides of an argument provided that they supply scientific evidence... (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Yeah, that last post was me, forgot the tildes. Anyway, as the article still reads like he is making a statement of fact, to maintain neutrality ( I am adding in the statement that "Thus far, scientific studies have shown no correlation between hoof health and color <>" Which is a properly sourced statement that is related to the topic we are discussing. You cannot remove it simply because you disagree with it per the "ownership" policies stated above. Laurelmw (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This content is not about the research behind white hoof/black hooves, its about the trainer and what he said. We are not in a position as encyclopedia editors to prove the trainer wrong or right which in Wikipedia terms would be original research; we are simply citing the source and its content and doing so in the trainer's voice rather than Wikipedia's voice.. Please don't revert again, and please understand the issue is not about the hooves; its about quoting the trainer and what he had to say about the horse. If the trainer said something like, CC runs better with a pink saddle we could include that because we are not attempting to prove anything or to suggest that anything we are adding is true, we are adding content which describes the trainer. Truth is not what Wikipedia editors deal with they deal with sources and content and whether those sources are verifiable and reliable. Truth doesn't enter the equation. I am reverting per WP:OR.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC))

Please explain how this is [WP:OR] when published studies exist? "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." And this issue with including the quote is that it perpetuates misinformation which the layperson is unlikely to look into. Anyone reading this article would conclude that those statements were being made as fact (and were originally presented as such). The average man on the street could work out that pink saddle cloths are just straight superstition, but a statement like "horses run faster in the morning" might be true, might not, and studies probably exist one way or the other or maybe there is no difference, but the reader would assume it was an accurate statement because it was a quote from a person within the business. We can't go quoting people as gospel or it could be really fun to get some quotes in newspapers and then just include them in articles just to mess with people... The statement about white feet adds nothing to the article when it was already stated above that that was NOT the cause of his issues. I'm still waiting on the one study that shows white feet are softer that was referenced earlier on. I'm starting to think it doesn't exist? Laurelmw (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Laurel, you are reading way more into this article than is there. AND you have now taken this issue to dispute resolution (and failed to notify me or anyone here, by the way but now we all know, so it's all OK). And now more people can look at the issue. The point is that the horse's trainer holds a view, we've stated it, we've cited it, and the relevance is important that we mention it because the meticulous care the horse's "people" have given him is very relevant, his special shoes, his essential soundness and such. Absent a through examination of the full text of all the "scientific" studies out there, we can draw no firm conclusions, and not conclusions as firm as you want to make. This is not a "superstition" or an "old wives tale"; it is a situation where preliminary studies exist suggesting some of the more extreme beliefs from the past may not be valid. However, Sherman is not saying that white hooves are "weaker," but that they need more care - which, considering stabled horses, race training, etc., may mean that Sherman knows what he is talking about in the context of the horses with which he works. Montanabw(talk) 01:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

edit conflict

Per WP:OR: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
The topic of this article is California Chrome. The trainer's comments refer to CC However, your cite is to an article that does not refer to CC. It is not, a published source that is related directly to the topic of the article-CC. For us to use the DVM's comment (the article you cite) he would have to discussing white hooves in reference to CC.
This is a common misunderstanding of Wikipedia. If this were a research paper, you might be able to veer off into a discussion of hoofedness and relate it to CC's hoof colour  :O). Wikipedia is not a research paper; its an encyclopedia so what is used in the article must at the least be based on published verifiable and reliable sources and those sources must directly relate to the topic of the article. Connecting the trainer's comments with the article on hoof colour synthesizes content and impliess a conclusion not in the source. The source is not saying anything about CC. I realize this can a little tricky to understand at first. You'll get used to it with time, as we all have.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC))
Here is an article that directly refers to CC and the hoof debate [7]. Froggerlaura ribbit 13:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of keeping a neutral point of view, I should be able to include the quote from Donato then from "it's all a bunch of bologne"

I'm starting to feel like Bill Nye in his debate against Ken Ham honestly, given that all I've asked for to change my mind is one piece of evidence, and I'm still waiting for it since it was previously mentioned repeatedly... (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Laurelmw (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think at this point, the idea that white hooves are weaker now falls under the category of a "fringe theory" as there is currently no scientific evidence for it, and even other trainers in the industry have called it "superstition" and I would propose removal of the quote per WP:PROFRINGE "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents" which is all that it currently stands on right now. (Still waiting on that study) If it is to remain in, either the quote from the other trainer calling it bologna needs to be included to avoid giving the theory undue weight, or the previous statement that was removed should be revised with the new source that froggerlaura has put forth (which I appreciate by the way, I enjoy scientific debate, I don't like being called a ranting lunatic and have my contributions pulled without any suggestion of how they could be improved when other questionable content is left in place) Laurelmw (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed new statement to follow the quotation by Art Sherman: "Thus far, scientific studies have shown no correlation between hoof health and color. <!-6-13-14.php> California Chrome’s success despite his white feet were addressed in fellow trainer Robert Donato’s statement “Just shows you that it’s all a bunch of baloney (sic)”. <>”

That should satisfy the original research issue. Are there any further objections to this? Laurelmw (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do object to a blanket comment like "bologna," and the "fringe theory" statement is actually extreme from your side. I AM open to working in the New York Times article, though, but DO note the quote from Shug McGaughey: " “White feet, they say, are weaker than darker feet, this and that, and that probably is true. But it’s not true across the board.” But for god's sake let's work out the language here, not in the article itself. I object to use of the farrier article because it's SYNTH, and I think this whole debate is really ridiculous. Montanabw(talk) 23:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The bologna statement was a direct quote, and is represented as his opinion. Just as the Sherman quote was stated as pure opinion. I would even be willing to change "statement" to "stated opinion" but the point of the article is debunking superstition, and even Shug's quote supports that. If you want to include his quote as well, I am fine with that, but I think the bologna quote comes from a highly respected (John Henry's) trainer and adds a valuable opinion that offsets Sherman's. It might actually get people interested enough in reading the article it was cited from. Can you explain a bit more why you think the farrier article is synth? It is not arriving at a different conclusion than the source material. This is what I'm reading on synth: We can even directly quote the farrier journal if you think I have summarized it poorly. This statement perhaps? "later research determined there is no difference in water content, chemical composition, hardness or compressive strength between white and black hooves." I mainly find it objectionable that you have somehow painted me as this person making malicious edits an with some kind of agenda, when you have no problem making your own edits without consensus and seem bent on suppressing science because it does not agree with your opinion. I honestly have no agenda here other than trying to prevent future generations of horse people from perpetuating misinformation. Laurelmw (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

And by definition, a fringe theory is one that has no scientific evidence to support it. Think the anti vaccine movement. There are plenty of adherents, but no scientific evidence. I still haven't seen a scientific study supporting white hooves as being softer or any more prone to problems. Only references to your own anecdotal evidence, and the opinions of those who wear the same suit on race days and flip their underwear inside out, etc... If you have a different definition of fringe, please share. Or share that study has surfaced, please share. Laurelmw (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you make a ton of assumptions about me. No, I am not "suppressing science", I am critical of poorly-designed studies that have inconclusive results. But for that, let's just find full text versions of the so-called "scientific" studies and let's analyze each of them objectively. The Jaime Jackson material is pretty useless because his studies were all done on feral horses in a natural setting, and a lot of his work has already been discredited vis-a-vis domesticated horses living in domesticated conditions. Find me studies of stabled horses (such as race horses), exposed 24/7 to urine and feces, stall bedding and insufficient turnout and we can talk. In the meantime, let's just look at this issue as far as it involves California Chrome. To that end, I'm putting the drama paragraph below and we can figure out if there is any way to keep everyone content for this week. I'm DONE wasting my breath on this. The article is at peer review and I'm being dinged for having commas in the wrong place. I do not need all this hysteria over one lousy paragraph. The drama-free zone begins NOW. Montanabw(talk) 00:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ratchet down the drama here

OK, I am going to copy and paste it below and we can figure out how to add the additional NYT article: [8] I am going to absolutely insist that any edits fall within the criteria for a featured article and we have no need for our original research or inappropriate synthesis, nor will this be a soapbox for arguing over white hooves in general, whether beliefs are "superstition" or legitimate views that have a century of knowledge behind them. Here's the excerpt. Let's discuss changes below it. Montanabw(talk) 00:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Though California Chrome's feet have generally been healthy, his trainer and farrier have been careful in the management of his white-colored hooves.[15] Art Sherman stated, "All horses with four white feet are prone to needing more care ... The [hooves] can be shellier ... We’re always working on his feet. Horses with white hooves, they have a tendency to have problems if you don’t keep up with them." During his two-year-old season, California Chrome began to develop low heels, and in late 2013, his farrier, Judd Fisher, found that a particular style of glued-on horseshoe with a rim pad that raised a horse's heels was suitable for fixing the problem.[16] Fisher also liked the shoe design because the hard rubber pad on the shoe was very durable.[17] Instead of gluing it on, he custom-drilled holes into the shoe so it would be nailed to the horse's feet in the manner of a traditional metal shoe.[16] Nailing on the shoes raised the soles of the horse's feet slightly farther off the ground, according to Fisher. The first time this shoe was applied was just prior to the King Glorious Stakes in December 2013. It is viewed as one of the possible factors contributing to California Chrome's subsequent series of wins.[18]

Suggested changes:

  1. Add a new sentence to start the paragraph, citing the NYT article, saying "California Chrome defied traditional horse racing superstition that a horse with four white feet was a bad omen.[cite NYT] "Nonetheless, though [CC's] feet have generally been healthy...[keep what's there, including Sherman quote]. Montanabw(talk) 00:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. I still think the Sherman quote is misleading when there is no research that supports that viewpoint, so it makes the paragraph biased. I would support:

    "California Chrome defied traditional horse racing superstition that a horse with four white feet was a bad omen.[cite NYT] Though California Chrome's feet have generally been healthy, his trainer and farrier have been careful in the management of his white-colored hooves.[15] During his two-year-old season, California Chrome began to develop low heels, and in late 2013, his farrier, Judd Fisher, found that a particular style of glued-on horseshoe with a rim pad that raised a horse's heels was suitable for fixing the problem.[16] Fisher also liked the shoe design because the hard rubber pad on the shoe was very durable.[17] Instead of gluing it on, he custom-drilled holes into the shoe so it would be nailed to the horse's feet in the manner of a traditional metal shoe.[16] Nailing on the shoes raised the soles of the horse's feet slightly farther off the ground, according to Fisher. The first time this shoe was applied was just prior to the King Glorious Stakes in December 2013. It is viewed as one of the possible factors contributing to California Chrome's subsequent series of wins.[18]"

    Laurelmw (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. So basically am I reading this correctly - you are arguing to just chop the Sherman quote, add the NYT material I suggested, and the rest can stay? (I've got to think about that, but for now want to be sure I understand your position) Montanabw(talk) 03:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Correct. I don't want to state in the article that hooves are more prone to problems in any way that might sound like a scientific fact when there aren't any studies that back that up. If there was to be a quote to that effect, it would need another quote or something like the farrier article to offset its bias. Saying that they're taking good care of them because they're white, and that's a current racetrack anecdote or superstition is fine and completely accurate based on the articles we're using, and if people want to read more into the articles, hopefully it will inspire them to dig deeper and they can draw their own conclusions from the current evidence. If I ever do a study on the effects of being stallbound on colored racehorse hooves, do I have to give you some sort of credit for stealing the idea from you? ;) Laurelmw (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Damn straight I want credit! LOL! I've been tracking how much the press is "cribbing" off of this article, and it is amusing me; I've only caught one blatent copy and paste so far, (note above) but use of certain adjectives showed up here before they showed up in other articles. It's kind of like that thing they do with memos in Washington to catch leaks; wording each a bit differently so when the press copies one, they know which agency had that version... Bwahahahaha! Montanabw(talk) 21:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  6. And yes, you - or someone - SHOULD do a study of living hoof tissue in stall-kept horses! Seriously! Be aware, though, that I am often very dubious - as should folks in general - of the validity of so-called "scientific" studies in horse-land. Some of them are kind of absurd, like this one, often suffer from inadequate design (the study linked here only fed COB, fed everything five pounds a day with no apparent correlation for weight or other actual needs, etc... then drew very broad conclusions about grain in general, with the kind of caveats that non-scientists routinely ignore... ) Montanabw(talk) 22:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  7. But to the point here, you should know that it's a bit broad to note a few poorly-designed old studies equals a "scientific fact" (remember the joke, "even gravity is a theory"); what we have is a hypothesis that white hooves may be softer and more prone to problems than dark hooves, the above studies to date do not support this hyothesis. My view is that it is an exaggeration to say that there are absolutely no differences between white and dark hooves, just as it's an exaggeration to say that a horse with four white feet should be "fed to the crows" as the old adage supposedly stated. I'm still debating in my own mind if just chopping the Sherman quote is pussyfooting around the issue or not. My initial thought is to say, "f---it, tired of the drama" but I also am a fan of teaching the controversy. But, the farrier articles calling the whole thing an old wives' tale are, in my view, also painting too broadly based on preliminary data. Montanabw(talk) 22:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  8. It seems like racehorses should be an obvious testbed for a lot of have a large group of horses with similar genetics all being maintained, fed etc in fairly consistent ways...Talk about a control group. And you are correct to state that white hooves and dark hooves are different in at least one manner: pigment, which as froggerlaura pointed out could certainly have an effect on photosensitivity...I just think introducing the quote makes it sound to much like an established truth when clearly it IS controversial (see previous thread for heated debate), and I don't like that level of bias when the studies done so far just don't support it. Laurelmw (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  9. The main reason being because unlike a publication like bloodhorse, where the readers should at least be somewhat educated with horsekeeping, the readers of an article on a very famous horse on wikipedia are likely to just take everything in here at face value. Laurelmw (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  10. Rolling over in my mind if there exists a way to present both sides without writing a treatise in an article that doesn't need the diversion because it's already pretty long (I'm being criticized for its length already) versus fretting over if we are missing an issue to ignore it altogether. I'm actually not even super comfortable with the word "superstition" in the bit above because while scientific evidence is lacking so far, the anecdotal evidence is very strong, and when it comes to what "scientific studies clearly prove," well, I think you are about my age, and if so, we all saw Sleeper. Also look at the evolving studies on the health benefits of eggs and coffee... LOL. Montanabw(talk) 23:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  11. What about changing "California Chrome defied traditional horse racing superstition" to " California Chrome defied horse racing tradition"? And I would disagree on the anecdotal evidence being strong...most forums seem to say there is no difference, and the quotes from the article range from, yes there is a difference, to maybe they are different, to "bologna". I have not seen Sleeper. It says 1973, so that would have been 11 years before I was born. But yes, no scientific field seems to be more bipolar than nutrition. Personally I'm sticking with the wine and chocolate are good for you result even if they reverse their position on that particular theory. Laurelmw (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    Although maybe I do come off as older, Buzzfeed said I'm really 54, but I think the Werther's question skewed it honestly... Laurelmw (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  12. LOL that test said I'm 34! (which is off by, um, a lot!) But I'm with you on wine and chocolate! We can't say "defied tradition" because it isn't a tradition, its a belief. Plenty of white-footed horses race, note Will Take Charge. Let me mull a bit more, busy RL these next few days. Montanabw(talk) 19:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  13. OK, brain back in gear. Will this work?

    "California Chrome's feet have generally been healthy,[15] in contrast to a commonly-held belief in the horse racing world that four white feet on a horse is a bad omen.[cite NYT] His trainer and farrier have been careful in the management of his hooves.[15] Nonetheless, during his two-year-old season, California Chrome began to develop low heels, and in late 2013, his farrier, Judd Fisher, found that a particular style of glued-on horseshoe with a rim pad that raised a horse's heels was suitable for fixing the problem.[16] Fisher also liked the shoe design because the hard rubber pad on the shoe was very durable.[17] Instead of gluing it on, he custom-drilled holes into the shoe so it would be nailed to the horse's feet in the manner of a traditional metal shoe.[16] Nailing on the shoes raised the soles of the horse's feet slightly farther off the ground, according to Fisher. The first time this shoe was applied was just prior to the King Glorious Stakes in December 2013. It is viewed as one of the possible factors contributing to California Chrome's subsequent series of wins.[18]"

    Montanabw(talk) 18:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  14. I am good with that wording. Laurelmw (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  15. I'm staring at it and want to tweak it some, I still don't feel comfortable dismissing the white hoof thing as pure superstition, will this work?

    "California Chrome's feet have generally been healthy,[15] in contrast to a commonly-held belief in the horse racing world that four white feet on a horse are undesirable.[cite NYT] His trainer and farrier have been careful in the management of his white-colored hooves.[15] Nonetheless, during his two-year-old season, California Chrome began to develop low heels, and in late 2013, his farrier, Judd Fisher, found that a particular style of glued-on horseshoe with a rim pad that raised a horse's heels was suitable for fixing the problem.[16] Fisher also liked the shoe design because the hard rubber pad on the shoe was very durable.[17] Instead of gluing it on, he custom-drilled holes into the shoe so it would be nailed to the horse's feet in the manner of a traditional metal shoe.[16] Nailing on the shoes raised the soles of the horse's feet slightly farther off the ground, according to Fisher. The first time this shoe was applied was just prior to the King Glorious Stakes in December 2013. It is viewed as one of the possible factors contributing to California Chrome's subsequent series of wins.[18]"

    Montanabw(talk) 05:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It's still being addressed as a belief, so I am ok with that wording. Laurelmw (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, give me a bit to get to it, probably late today...I have to do the NYT source as a new citation in there, other nitpicky things. Montanabw(talk) 19:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Fix done, should be OK now. Montanabw(talk) 23:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Colons, capitals

This may be a difference between British and American usage [9] but I prefer "2013: two-year-old season". Not worth fighting over, just a thought. Tigerboy1966  20:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've seen both versions, [10], and I must confess to a fondness for title case capitalization in heatings, though I'm not obsessed on the issue. I'll probably just let the FAC reviewers fight that one out. ;-) Montanabw(talk) 21:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not "3-year-old", etc.

There are many instances of "three-year-old", "two-year-old", "four-year-old" etc. in the article referring to ages of horses, but MOS:NUMERAL says "Ages are typically stated in figures (8-year-old child)". (I can see exceptions if at beginning of a sentence, or referring to an official title, but otherwise ...). Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Because if we do it that way, then the next reviewer comes along and quotes another section of MOS:NUMERAL that states that numbers one through nine are written out and only numbers 10 and up are written as numerals. Also, 9000 articles tagged for Wikiproject horse racing can't be wrong. I am absolutely not going to get into a pissing match over something like this. Montanabw(talk) 20:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, didn't know about 9000 horse racing articles spelling ages. (MOS the way it is currently is clear of course and no two reviewers could disagree re MOS interpretation [using numeral is given as "exception" to the "general" to spell out one thru ten). Since 9000 aren't wrong, no choice then, MOS is out of date. (I wonder for how long?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Heh, heh, heh. Well, 9000 is probably an exaggeration, as not all 9000 break down ages, but how many times have we all seen someone go change the MOS and then insist that the rest of us have to change a bunch of articles that are now in violation of the MOS? I'm also mostly a Chicago Manual of Style person, and though it permits either words or numerals, this is how I tend to roll.  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 06:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW the BBC and all the major British newspapers use "two-year-old", "three-year-old" etc. The last two threads remind me of a performance review in which I was taken to task for making notes in black ink rather than blue. I left thinking "well, if THAT'S my biggest problem I really don't have much to worry about". Tigerboy1966  11:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Not the biggest problem here though. (Easiest stuff first.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The MOS is generally a good guide to what editors do, and it's no coincidence that in this case it qualifies its guidance with "typically". That's possibly because there are topics where editors have regularly used expressions like "one-year-old" (which to my eyes looks far more natural than "1-year-old", but YMMV -- strangely I find the MOS example, "8-year-old child" nowhere near as odd-looking as examples with a lower numeral). --RexxS (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. (I wonder if it's because we see "8-year-old" more frequently, because people use it more frequently, because spelling "eight" is a tad more problematic than spelling any of the other single-digit numerals!?) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, this one is settled. Onward through the pre-FAC review process. Montanabw(talk) 17:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

CC nasal strip.jpg

I've moved this image up from the bottom of the "Chromies" section to the top of Belmont Stakes and switched it to the right. The reasons are: (1) The issue of nasal strips is much better discussed at the start of Belmont Stakes; and (2) the image was displacing to the right two level 3 headings (Saddle cloths and Marketing) and at widths above 1400px in monobook skin was also displacing the level 2 heading Statistics. If you think it leaves the section too bare of images, feel free to revert - or find a better spot for the image as I suspect that at FAC there may be complaints about displacing the Statistics heading. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's groovy. I may be able to do a screen grab of an image from the Belmont, but I think that section can probably handle two images. In the meantime, it's good to have one. I was hoping for a PD image of the saddlecloths, but no luck so far. Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

OK talk page stalkers... =:-O

We have a RS for a rumored and now verified California Chrome idiosyncrasy: (search for "let the tittering begin"). Open question: Does this go into the article or not? Montanabw(talk) 22:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Four white feet passage

I know there was a big brouhaha over the four white hoof belief and I don't want to reopen the underlying drama, but the passage that has resulted from it reads as a stilted compromise. It's really the only part of the article that I view as a problem after my last pass.

"The horse's hooves have generally been healthy,[71] belying a commonly held belief in the horse racing world that four white feet on a horse are undesirable"[72]

It's hanging out in space. "Undesirability" is not a match with "healthfulness"; the specificity of the color invites telling the reader what the alternative is (what other kind of feet is this opposed to? any other color? black feet? red, blue, polka-dot?); and is the belief, as the sentence implies, really that the number of feet is the problem, rather than the type of feet, i.e., the sentence's structure implies that it's having four white feet, as opposed to three or two... that is believed to be unhealthy (undesirable).

In order for this to work, it would have to say something like "The horse's four white hooves have generally been healthy,[71] belying a commonly held belief in the horse racing world that white feet on a horse, as opposed to the common _______ type of hoof, are more prone to medical problems".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem, there is no scientific evidence either way that white hooves are a problem. The compromise was trying to skirt around having to say white hooves are inferior with nothing to back up that theory. In my opinion, if CC does not have a problem with his feet anyway, why mention this at all? Froggerlaura ribbit 17:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Froggerlaura: We don't need evidence of efficacy, inefficacy, inferiority, etc. to describe a belief, we just have to be sure in the way we couch our description that we do not imply efficacy and at the same time make clear it is indeed a belief being described. Why it should or should not be included (in some form) resolves on weight and comprehensiveness. If it is sufficiently the subject of reliable sources in relation to the topic at hand then it is part of the story and thus should be included, just as someone's belief in, or constant treatment with, bullshit homeopathic "medicine" would be properly part of their biography if it sufficiently formed part of their story. Mind you I have done no survey of RS to find out if it meets those thresholds to beg mention.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
True, but this stuff comes up all the time about horses with white feet even if the horse has no foot problems whatsoever. In the collapsed section above on this talk page, there was a discussion that spanned several days about how to dance around this issue without giving undue weight to either side. Before, there were quotes from Art Sherman and another trainer with one saying the superstition is totally true (no RS back up this view, we've looked) and the other saying it is bumpkis (RS scientific studies are admittedly flawed), but this made it look like wiki was choosing sides, endorsing one view or engaging in SYNTH. Froggerlaura ribbit 22:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Your comment above appears 100% focused on what it said before. I am not suggesting a return of any prior content but my problem with the form of the current sentence, with a suggestion for modification, which I think adequately gives no endorsement of efficacy and makes it clear it is a belief.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Kay, but your suggestion is essentially what was there before another user had problems with it. I don't really care. It can be changed but don't be surprised if it is again challenged. Froggerlaura ribbit 18:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The context was that he wears unusual shoes and that they addressed a specific problem, that probably had little to do with his hoof color, but the press at the time jumped all over it with the old "four white feet are bad" thing. Froggerlaura accurately noted what has transpired since. Let me take a stab at rewording this and see if we can finally kill it for good. Montanabw(talk) 01:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Follow up: I tossed the white feet part altogether and just kept the part about the shoes. The issue arose mostly due to this article which was picked up by others in the press with varying degrees of "white feet bad" hysteria. In retrospect, the only real issue was the cool high-tech shoes. Plus, tossing another couple sentences will undoubtably edlight Blofeld at the FAC! (grin). Montanabw(talk) 02:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Pre PA Derby workout photos

Usable Flickr photos here if needed. Froggerlaura ribbit 05:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

👍 Like and **bows** to your amazing image-finding abilities! And congrats on passing your test stuff! Montanabw(talk) 19:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! And congrats on MMM's recent showing on FA. Fine job all around. Froggerlaura ribbit 01:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The length of this article is ridiculous

California Chrome won the Triple Crown, right? No? So why is this article so ridiculously long? Secretariat (who by the way DID win the Triple Crown, and holds the speed records in all three events) has an entry nowhere near this long. But then, Tim Tebow has an entry probably six times as long as that of Johnny Unitas. That's how Wikipedia works. The inferior horse (or quarterback) gets the longer write-up for no other reason than someone having a lot of time on their hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sd31263 (talkcontribs) 04:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

To each his/her own. There is nothing stopping you from improving those articles instead of complaining. But complaining is of course easier. Froggerlaura ribbit 06:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I never thought about that. From now on I will start assessing all articles by tape measure; it's the perfect metric to determine quality and comprehensiveness! We don't need to think about what should or should not be included or what the existing state of knowledge is – one size fits all. Hmm, since the C class article at Secretariat is non-ridiculous at about half the length, we can make this featured article of equal quality by just removing every other word.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
You know, one of these days we really DO need to bring Secretariat up to FAC quality... just that it's so dang daunting with all the vandals and crazies that hit it... Had we started it in 1973... Montanabw(talk) 05:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


[11]Ched :  ?  21:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

In a closed discussion at my talk page, I stated that IHTS had not previously edited this article. I was mistaken. He edited the article (±30 times) about a year ago between July 4, 2014 and August 10, 2014? This appears to coincide with the PR prior to FAC. Montanabw(talk) 01:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Um, double that number of edits (if the research tool is correct). IHTS (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Either way, do I have the dates correct? (The tool I used said 28...) Montanabw(talk) 02:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
This tool says 60 [12]. (But this correction info doesn't belong on article Talk, rather on your or White Arabian mare's Talk.) IHTS (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I know, but other users closed that conversation and I don't want to violate CambridgeBayWeather's admonition at his talk and mine. WAM is a newbie, I'm not concerned about her, she actually seems very levelheaded for all she's new; I've been kind of mentoring her through all this other stuff, she probably just felt protective. Montanabw(talk) 02:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Colored quote boxes

The article was raised to WP:FA with colored quote boxes. Before removing the color, it would be necessary to have a consensus here to do that. I am opening this discussion to ascertain consensus. I for one, have always liked the color in the quote boxes on this article -- it adds to the visual interest and helps break up the monotony of text. Those things (visual interest) are always important for FAs. I for one am in favor of keeping the color. Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

My view is, yes, color in general is good for visual interest and to draw the eye (especially aging ones like mine) I feel pretty strongly that some color should be used. If people don't like these particular colors, we can discuss that; I have wondered if the shades should be lightened a bit. The purple and green was a deliberate choice, the DAP racing colors, it was raised at some point and the FAC passed with them. I suppose one could go all light green or all light lavender, I think I just used a light blue on American Pharoah, but I think the purple and green is kind of amusing and would prefer to keep it. Montanabw(talk) 04:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Personally I like them just as they are ... differentiated (all three different), with some well-defined color. (The use here actually inspired me to use color on some other articles I was working on at the time of this FA.) Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
"I feel pretty strongly that some color should be used." But you don't analyze why you feel that. Perhaps to set it off from the text? OK, the actual *box* (black rectangular outline) sets the text off, as well as the quotebox template light gray-supplied background color. That's what the outline and light gray is for. And it is sufficient. Plastering cutzie colors into the background spaces kills the great real purple & green colors in the photos & image, by drowning them out. The template is smart. Light gray is not distracting. It's professional, and encyclopedic, and sets things off as much as they need, and not excessively, creating distraction and glittery glut. [I repeat: Less is more.]) IHTS (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
It's a bad idea. ("Cutifying" the article with kitsch decorative colors.) Yes, FA articles s/b "enjoyable to read", but this is more appropriate for Picture Magazine (maybe out-of-print, I dunno), not an encyclopedic article. (Could you see Britannica doing same?) We get that the horse's & uniform colors are purple & green. Less is more. (If you like to see those colors, they will pop out even more, if you just let them, where they count - in the photos and depictions of uniform. By throwing in these spaces of solid colors, you actually overrun the real colors in the images like a Mac Truck.) It's a Featured article, not a page from a coloring book. The fact that FAC let it go by, has no bearing - FAC is not omniscient or God. Stop reverting me. Adding cutzie colors would be the bold change, since they are superfluous, unprofessional, distracting, gaudy. An encyclopedic article is not a dollhouse to play with according to our color fancy. Now let me hear your cogent reason to add back cutzie colors to the backgrounds. (I'd first recommend you look at the article without them, and compare, to maybe see what I've been saying.) The onus is on you to explain why you'd add distracting cutzie kitsch like this to an encyclopedic article. (WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason. "It draws attention" is why it is a poor idea, not a good one.) IHTS (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion and input and for engaging in discussion. There's still however no WP:CONSENSUS not to have the color which existed on the FA until your current edit-war, so I encourage you to self-revert your latest removal of the colored quote boxes. Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Your argument comes down to WP:ILIKEIT. Consensus isn't made by body count, rather quality of argument. IHTS (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
IHTS, I am open to discussion of changing the colors, but the plain white you have is actually hard to read in terms of setting off the quote box from the rest of the article. If you don't like purple and green, we can discuss that, but I think your position of no color at all is not justifiable on the basis of readability; the gray line alone does not adequately set off the quotation from the text. And, per WP:BRD, the WP:BURDEN is actually on you to justify the change. If you have citations to policy or guidelines, I'd suggest you post them here. So I concur that you need to restore the status quo so it can be discussed. Montanabw(talk) 05:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I thought at first the rectangular box outline was black, but I see now it is dark gray. (That's even better than black - less harsh.) The box background default color on my computer is a light gray, darker than the text page off-white. So it is not "plain white" (unless your computer color settings are somehow radically different). The default quote box, according to your position, is "unjustifiably diffucult to read"?? (Man, I think the quote box programmers were excellent designers too. Readability is fine on my computer, and their design minimizes unnecessary distraction. They did a good job. [I'm very critical, and I couldn't improve on what they've done.]) I don't agree with your other stuff - it is too policy wonk, and I notice your supporters have tag-teamed without any argument, in reverting, and also hollow arguments in discussion. 3RR does not override bad taste and poor judgement. Your colorizations overrun the article with distracting unnecessary glitz. The true colors of purple & green in photos and images are drowned out. Think "encyclopedia", not Picture Magazine. (Now, I'm repeating myself.) IHTS (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: I have alerted WikiProject Horse racing of this discussion. Montanabw(talk) 05:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


  • Coloured quote boxes create accessibility problems. Those problems are accentuated by smaller screens (e.g., mobile devices or smaller tablets). The colours chosen are particularly inappropriate; they are dark and overwhelm the text even on a full-sized screen. The light grey colour that is normally used for quote boxes is selected so that it does not create these usability and accessibility problems. This isn't even a matter of preference or "cutifying" or attractiveness. Usability and accessibility are core concepts, and I am actually quite shocked that the colours were not removed during the FA process. Perhaps FA no longer considers accessibility as a key component. Risker (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    • No one ever raised it as a concern with me. I think someone asked me why green and purple, that was it. If there is a light gray that works, I'm Ok using it, but I've seen gray be even more inaccessible than a light green or light yellow. Frankly, the white-on-white for my 50-year old eyes is inaccessible to me, it means the quote box is just indistinguishable from the text, the line doesn't help ... so just point me to the color chart for the accessibility colors allowed and I can pick one. Montanabw(talk) 06:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Again, I see light gray in the box background, different from the body text off-white background. Also, WikiProject Horse racing is not the pertinent audience for this consideration. IHTS (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't. On my laptop screen it's white on white - the border is dark gray - you have no color parameter in there at all... maybe you have a different browser or a different monitor than I do. But in either case, it would be useful here to cite the accessibility standard to which Risker is referring; I know there's a list of "good" and "bad" colors somewhere around here, but I can't find it. Also, the people who work on these types of articles are appropriate ones to ping. You can ping other projects if you wish. Montanabw(talk) 06:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
          • I can understand then, an inclination to add color. (My browser is Firefox.) But not brilliant neon color. Whatever color s/b only a shade darker than the text off-white background. p.s. I'm done here, I've made all comments necessary. Do what you want w/ the article, but please don't uglify it by reverting back to neon-colored backgrounds. (Light gray is best.) IHTS (talk) 06:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I may be wrong or misremembering, but many if not most FAs that I've seen recently have colored quote boxes. Pinging Eric Corbett, who probably has the most experience reviewing FAs, for possible substantiation one way or another or neither .... Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────FWIW, I have looked at this article in Monobook on Safari and in default settings with Firefox and with (Google) Chrome, and the box is white on both of them. No gray except the border ... IHTS, maybe share with us what you are using, because I don't see gray at all. (I have a MacBook Pro, if that matters) Montanabw(talk) 06:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Try logging out and then viewing it. I suspect you have some sort of script running that is altering the standard formatting of the quote template. Risker (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Ran it logged out on Chrome and Firefox, default settings. Logged in with Monobook. All white. May be my screen, which does flunk the really fussy color distinction charts for graphic designers. Have noticed that when editing on a PC, things look different. Montanabw(talk) 07:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
On a PC, on Chrome and on Monobook version of WP, I see the boxes in IDHT's version as the palest of grey -- the palest on any greyscale chart, commensurate with the grey in the TOC and the lefthand side-margins of articles. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The applicable MOS standard is here. Quote boxes are not the same as navboxes, where the colour used is minimal. Quote boxes are prose. I would ask that the last person who just reinstated the colour self-revert; they are genuinely making the quotes much more difficult for me to read, but it's beyond me that MOS compliance is no longer an FA requirement. That this was not identified at the time of the FAC is unfortunate. That people are edit-warring over this is completely unacceptable, and I will not hesitate to take EVERYONE who is doing this to WP:3RR. Risker (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything in that link about the background color on quoteboxes. I see information about type (letters), and about navboxes, but not about the background of quoteboxes. I think you may be confusing type (letters -- yes, letters on WP can be colored) with background. On the other count, we are observing WP:BRD in terms of the status quo ante, especially on this FA. Softlavender (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I read that as not using colour in relation to prose, which is what is contained in quote boxes. And no, BRD does not permit you to return to "status quo ante" - it requires everyone to stop reverting, period, until the issue is resolved. There is no exception for FAs. Risker (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
No, it's specifically talking about prose text (the exact words used), not background, and it wikilinks to Link color (which is just one of the ways type can be colored on WP; there are others, such as this). If the MOS meant background, it would specifically say background; type and background are two different things. Softlavender (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC); edited 07:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think I found the right page: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Color. But it doesn't address quote boxes. I found Help:Using_colours#Wikimedia_colour_schemes, and perhaps the light lavender #FAF5FF could replace the purple and #CEF2D4 for the green? If there is a page that says "don't put colors in a quotebox, leave it gray" I would appreciate being pointed to it... Montanabw(talk) 07:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Since FA criteria were mentioned, and since although I pinged Eric it appears he is only sporadically on WP these days, I looked through the TFAs for September (I can't think of an easier or faster way to find recent FAs -- is there one?), and here are three with colored quoteboxes: The Royal Opera, A Handful of Dust, Death of Jimi Hendrix. Softlavender (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Risker needs to refresh her memory on the FA criteria; accessibiliy has never been among them. Eric Corbett 11:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for returning to this comment so long after the fact, but it is now clear that Eric was mistaken in his perceptions about accessibility; it is quite possible that many of the accessibility features have been so well-entrenched at FAC for so long that he might not even think of them as "accessibility" features. Accessibility features have been FAC criteria for longer than I have been editing; it's why we don't have images right after titles (messes up the screen readers), and why we use alt text for images (both of which were regularly being corrected/fixed) back at least as far as 2008. As others have since pointed out, WP:ACCESS is part of WP:MOS, and all FAs are supposed to be compliant with MOS. Risker (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks like WP:ACCESS says "AA level, and AAA level when feasible." Truth is, just as Nikkimaria does copyright checks on images and such, probably a few WP:ACCESS active users should just do an automatic review of all FACs. I've been through enough now that I know that there are, literally, hundreds of guidelines and rules for everything from formatting to access to ... and it's difficult to know all this small stuff. Montanabw(talk) 06:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
It would be wonderful if more FAC reviewers asked for improvements to meet MOS:ACCESS, but I think it requires a gradual process of helping editors understand what is best practice so that making our contributions accessible becomes second nature. One of the more difficult requirements is for alt text, because you have to learn how to write good alt text so that it does its job as well as fitting in with the caption. The problems of over-prescription of alt text led to a general agreement a while ago at FAC that alt text would not be a requirement for passing. As far as I know, that remains the position today, although we should be helping where we can to help FAC writers to write good alt text. We won't create a perfect process, just as we we'll never finish writing the encyclopedia, but we can try to make improvements if we can take others along with us. --RexxS (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
See also WP:Colour contrast as a practical explanation. The issue is that accessibility guidelines require a certain level of contrast between the color of the text and the color of the background in order to be readable to people with some visual disabilities. It's the same problem regardless of whether it's text or background that's colored, and regardless of what kind of template the text is in. I know this has been discussed a lot recently with regard to infoboxes and navboxes, but hadn't really thought about what people were doing with quoteboxes.
In any case, the desired standard is documented here, and requires a contrast ratio or 7 or above for AAA accessibility; this tool will help do the calculation. Looks like right now the      green is compliant (7.32) but the      purple is not (5.6) compared to the link color. This      is the quotebox default, FWIW. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, OR. What say we revisit the precise color issue in 4 days, after Montanabw's RfA has presumably been finished, and she has had time to breathe, sleep, eat, rest, recreate, etc.? I think after that she will have more time to devote to this issue. I don't think it's realistic to expect her to fully participate with us here until the RfA is over. And no, she doesn't own this article, but it is her most-edited article and a recent FA, so I think she should have input on the choices ... and now doesn't seem like an appropriate time to request or force her input. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The little box here does look white on my screen (maybe a tiny bit of off-white, but if there wasn't a line around it, I wouldn't be able to distinguish it), I would be grateful if this did go on hold until the 24th, but at the same time I have no objection if someone wants to lighten up the colors (I mentioned a couple possible codes, based on the wiki color guidelines) and play with to see how it looks. Once the contrast question (a legitimate one) is addressed, then we can have further conversation (indeed, once I have time to breathe) over whether the stable colors theme is still supported by consensus or not. Montanabw(talk) 15:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Risker and Opabinia regalis are right about the contrast being an issue and I think the default gray quote box color is a good choice. TBH, I don't really understand the use of quote boxes in articles as they strike me as less than encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a magazine. jps (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The quote boxes here allowed for some illustrative direct quotations to be highlighted, where they would be buried in the text. Montanabw(talk) 21:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, yes. I get what they're being used for and that they're allowed. I just don't find them to be all that encyclopedic. It's more the way one would write a magazine article rather than an encyclopedia article. jps (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I also see no reason this needs to be fixed OMGRIGHTNOW; it can be revisited after the RfA is over. (I'll note for the record that there are people involved in the accessibility discussions who do think these problems should fixed as soon as they are discovered, though that doesn't seem to be the argument IHTS was making in any case.)
From a look at Softlavender's other examples, it seems like it'd be a good idea for someone to go shake a stick at WT:FAC after the dust has settled - accessibility is part of the MOS and therefore should be included in FAC reviews, and has been at various times in the past. (I'm not involved in the FA process now, but I remember some mudslinging about alt text back in the day...) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I fully support the concept of accessibility, (you will note this article has alt text throughout for all images) but where there isn't a clear consensus, such as color versus gray and such, I am open to discussion. As for the issue of quote boxes and/or the colors within, the graphic design debates are probably beyond the scope of this talk page and so, absent policy, it becomes a question of consensus, and, to a certain extent, editor discretion. The FAC was a very thorough one (see milestones box above) and that after a pretty extensive Peer review and a respected and experienced GAN reviewer; many eyes have been on this article. All that said, the bottom line for me is that the gray is invisible to me on my laptop, it may be because the laptop is not new, or it could be because my eyes are over 50 (even after cataract surgery) but if it looks white to me, it might to others, and I would hope that we could at least agree to darken the shade just enough to overcome that problem. Montanabw(talk) 21:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree - just trying to warn you in case any of those others happen to see this thread :) Independent of whether this article ultimately has colored boxes or not, it seems worth darkening the default quotebox background a little. I personally don't have the time for that discussion right now, but I'll make a mental note to follow up in a couple of weeks if nobody else does. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible compromise

"This one disappointment should not overshadow in any way what he gave the entire country and the electricity he created during those five magical weeks. The drama that is the Triple Crown has become more Shakespearean than anything else."

Steve Haskin, Blood-Horse, June 9, 2014[1]

"They would need to sprout wings to get to California Chrome."

Trevor Denman, track announcer at Santa Anita Park, calling the 2014 San Felipe Stakes[2][3]

MontanaBW asked me to have a look at this discussion, but having read through it, I think all the issues have been covered. Opabinia regalis is correct, of course: the relevant guidance is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Color. I should note for Eric that I've been trying to gradually encourage the regulars at FAC to take account of the results of not complying with WP:ACCESS (and I've even suggested that FA Criterion 2 "It follows the style guidelines" now requires compliance as ACCESS is now part of MOS) - any assistance in making the case would be appreciated.

As OR points out, the green background (#BBFFAD) is AAA-compliant, but the purple (#EEC2FF) is not when there are links in the text. No matter what consensus is reached here on aesthetic grounds, the purple background needs to be changed to meet accessibility requirements. If asked my personal preference, I'd always go with less colour - or at least less saturated colours - but that's mainly due to not wanting to encourage a proliferation of colours in Wikipedia. The default colours for elements are usually well-chosen and sticking with them usually avoids these sorts of issues and arguments. Even though different monitors have different colour responses and different people perceive colours differently, it is possible to achieve good results without straying from default colour schemes.

As a possible compromise, how would folks here think about trying a de-saturated set of background colours? The colours I've used in the boxes on the right are AAA-compliant and not very obtrusive, while still giving a nod to MontanaBW's intention of echoing the green/purple theme of DAP Racing. I suspect from her earlier comments, however, that she won't see them as any different from white (turn down your monitor brightness :P). Any thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think your saturation/density choices are excellent. (Though I still think purple & green is playing cute games more suited to Picture Magazine than encyclopedic article. [Montana wrote that she prefers to retain her purple & green text backgrounds because she "likes it", and thinks it is "amusing". FA articles are supposed to be enjoyabe to read, but name even one Britannica article that intentionally adds "amusement", and I'll build you a house with a swimming pool free.]) IHTS (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I am fully in favor of desaturated colors, and all for accessibility. But RexxS is right, both of these look pure white to me. I turned down my monitor brightness, tried a different (darker) calibration that did brighten up the little boxes and the gray never did show up, and the colored boxes still had no color at all except when the entire screen darkened during a word search. Can you darken it up even one shade more to be AAA compliant? I'll bless anything I can see! Montanabw(talk) 02:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Have you tried viewing on a different monitor. (If the problem is your monitor is fading, have you considered replacing with a new one? [Because it doesn't seem reasonable, that WP articles s/b fashioned to accomodate defective montors.]) IHTS (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering if there's an in-between saturation (between the currently existing live versions and the very pale versions posted above)? Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    FYI, the "very paled" versions, are "rightly paled". IHTS (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I just plugged in a good external monitor that is fairly new (and not often used), and it's displaying this page even lighter than my laptop. I also opened up and checked the page on a seldom-used 2 year old HP laptop running Windows 8 and Firefox. Also paler than my laptop. Looks like someone just tweaked the colors, though, because I can now see them. Montanabw(talk) 18:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Also, I took RexxS advice and adjusted the calibration on my laptop, which helped the colors show, but it makes things otherwise look rather dull and muddy, much else becomes less readable. (i.e. there's a trade-off) I have syntax highlighting turned on, and with the adjustment, that is now so dark that IT is not AAA-compliant!!! Another factor here is that my daytime editing is in a bright room that has florescent lighting - not uncommon in an office environment. I'd say that we also have to consider that 50 year old eyes might have a different range of discernment than 20-year old ones. I had catarat surgery this year, and the improvement in my vision has been nothing short of miraculous, but I still must use reading glasses. (Similarly, I probably can't pick up a dog whistle) Montanabw(talk) 19:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'll pop in these lighter colors; I'm using three different calibrations on my laptop, and one is the "muddy" one but the boxes are clear (and the default gray is also clear), the second is pretty pale, though the colors are barely discernable, and the third is OK in that I can see the colors and it isn't so dark tht other stuff begins to lack contrast. Personally, I'd say the green is fine, the lavender is a bit too pale and I wish we could tweak it just a wee tiny bit more... but I can live with it if it works for everyone else. Montanabw(talk) 19:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Alas, the lavender is the darkest shade of that hue that still meets AAA because we have to read blue links against the background. We always end up needing lighter background colours when they contain some blue in their mix for that reason. I'm glad you've got some different calibrations available as that helps us understand how others might be viewing our efforts. I span my desktop across two different monitors with markedly different calibrations so I can move a browser window from one to the other for comparison. --RexxS (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
SO if no blue links, can it go a shade darker? (and do footnotes count, which we are mandated to use?) I just saw (and now can't find again) a good article noting that once upon a time, computers were limited to 256 colors, then thousands, then millions. The writer was irritated because these contrast guidelines also are a problem on mobile phones, apparently, not just older monitors... I also have to point out that fine lines are more invisible to me regardless of the color, does this access guideline also factor in that, or only color contrast? Montanabw(talk) 23:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
We can't really go darker, for three reasons: (1) the links to the footnotes certainly count (and being small makes them even harder to see); (2) we can't guarantee that we'll always be around to make sure no future editor puts blue links into the box; (3) Featured Articles are exemplars of good work and get copied by less experienced editors who may then use your colour scheme in another article but add blue linked text. In an ideal world, we'd have guidelines that covered all aspects of the page delivered to the user, including making sure that fine lines stayed visible, even on mobile devices. Sadly, we're a long way from that, but one day perhaps ... --RexxS (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
So the fact that now that I am editing from home in a darker room with only one incandescent lightbulb in a lamp near me, the boxes now look yellow and pink is irrelevant? This afternoon, with a combo of daylight and florescent light, they were green and sort of pink/purple. On the "muddy" adjustment (that is quite difficult to read in daylight), they look OK and I'd be fine if that shade was what everyone saw. On the "display" setting (calibration that matches my external monitor, they are so pale you can tell there's some kind of color, but not sure what... So I guess my question is "hue based on whose monitor?" Montanabw(talk) 06:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any good answer to that question. Anybody can calibrate their monitor over such a large range of variables that there isn't any way we can make certain that a particular set of colours will look as intended, particularly when the ambient lighting changes. Monitor calibration programs exist, but you really need to have a pre-printed sheet with blocks of colours on it that you match to what you see on your monitor. This is how we used to calibrate broadcast monitors: but LCD panels quite probably can't reach that standard. All we can do is try our very best to help visually impaired readers read the text, and that means sticking to the WCAG AAA standards. --RexxS (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Heh, I'd probably qualify as "visually impaired!" (Definitely did before the cataract surgery!) I would note that the border defaults should match text shade to meet the standard as well; the other problem I had with the IHTS gray box is that the default border was so thin and gray that it was difficult to see the box set off from the body text. Montanabw(talk) 23:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Another plus for light gray default is that it is neutral color so won't mutate into unintended colors under incandescent/yellow, fluorescent/blue, or D6/natural lighting conditions. IHTS (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
And, bada-bing! Good one, but I'll live with pink and yellow... ;-) I just upgraded to Yosemite, which changed a lot of the interface on my browser(s), but that gray box is still too light - now a very faint difference, but still actually interferes with my reading because my eye treats it as a funny column -


  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Haskin9June was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Shinar25March2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ HRTV19Mar, 2:41.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


I think the "honors" in the infobox should be in the awards section. If we get a "California Chrome Stakes" or a life-size bronze statue those would be "honors". Tigerboy1966  08:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree. The main honor will be the Hall of Fame in five years, or maybe its six since he technically won't retire until 2018 by their rules I think. Jlvsclrk (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I've never been clear which goes where... as long as it's all in there, no biggie here. Montanabw(talk) 08:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


There is not a parameter called "assistant trainer" in the racehorse infobox. If you want it, get the infobox template updated, until then leave out such parms as they provide no value and are not seen. Ahwiv (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on California Chrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on California Chrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on California Chrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)