Jump to content

Talk:Epsom Derby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Odds

[edit]

Forgive me for asking, but how do you know what odds were being offered in the Nineteenth Century? Surely that depended upon who you were betting with, especially as off-course betting was illegal in the UK before the mid 1960s. A penny takes a quid that the odds quoted for the earliest races listed cannot be proved with any great veracity, not enough for an encyclopaedia anyway.

Sweetalkinguy 22:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure exactly but I know that you could telegram bets in to the course, so you might have needed SPs for that. Lazmac 17:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Winning Times and Creationism Debate

[edit]

This graph is a bit misleading - for instance the cluster of fast times in the 1940s may have something to do with the Derby being held at a different racecourse (Newmarket) during World War II. The winning time can be affected by many diverse factors - ground conditions, wind strength/direction, race tactics etc. And how accurate are the early timings? - Zafonic 11:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is not a relevant item to include in this section? The article is about the race, the Epsom Derby, and not about evolution. More fundamentally, it conflates selective breeding by human intervention over a couple of centuries, with natural selection acting over billions of years. No serious creationist claims that human selective breeding cannot influence the characteristics of some strain of a species. No evolutionist would recognise these graphs as having any relevance to the subject. The section should be removed from here, and, if there's any appetite for the evolutionism/creationism debate on Wikipedia, moved to some appropriate section in that area. --King Hildebrand 13:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

[edit]

So, what first race was in 1661? --P64 01:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winning margin

[edit]

The winning margin is at least as important as the time. Please could someone add a column to the table and include this information (note how often it is mentioned in articles about Shergar (ten lengths 1981) and how one of the points mentioned when discussing this year's winner Authorized (2007) is his winning margin was the largest since Slip Anchor (seven lengths 1985)).

I noticed that there are individual tables from the 1988 Epsom Derby so all someone has to do is go through them (sigh!) to extract the information. But perhaps someone else has a complete table (hopefully). --Philip Baird Shearer 11:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've extracted the information from the "Year Epsom Derby" articles. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the winning margin column. There were no explanation given for its removal. -- PBS (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent Epsom-trained winner

[edit]

Straight Deal, trained by Walter Nightingall of South Hatch, Epsom, won the race at Newmarket in 1943 (see list of winners). Unless you don't count those races, this is a more recent Epsom-trained winner than April the Fifth, which won at Epsom in 1932. 212.84.103.57 (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)NGW 10:48, 26 February 2009[reply]

Images

[edit]

I have placed the image of North Light in his article.Cgoodwin (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the Race

[edit]

The name of the race is "The Derby", not the "Epsom Derby". Compare and contrast with Masters Tournament which is named correctly, not the "US Masters" or "Augusta Masters" The article's name should be changed.Simonc1 (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutly correct - perhaps you should move the article? WP:BOLDDumpyD (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming the race will only cause confusion with the many other derbies that exist. The article already notes the alternative names. Cgoodwin (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it should; qv in addition to the examples quoted above The Times. There are lots of 'Timeses' but only one 'The Times'. A good analogy I feel. DumpyD (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Orlady (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Epsom Derby → The Derby — The name of the race is "The Derby", not "Epsom Derby". Compare and contrast with Masters Tournament which is named correctly, not the "US Masters" or "Augusta Masters". Another example, The Open Championship is not named the British Open, even though there are many other tournaments that call themselves "Open". Relisted. Jafeluv (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simonc1 (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While The Derby is undoubtedly the most common colloquial form, it is not unambiguous. Here in Greater Manchester, if we refer to The Derby we almost certainly mean a football match between Manchester United and Manchester City. Other cities with two sporting teams will have similar conventions. Perhaps the actual official title of Derby Stakes might be better? Skinsmoke (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming the race will only cause confusion with the many other horseracing, and other derbies that exist worlwide. The article already notes the alternative names. If it is to be re-named then English Derby would be much more appropriate and meaningful, especially as so many horse travel across the world now.Cgoodwin (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Derby has redirected here for over two years without objection or comment, so I don't understand an objection to the move based on the rationale that "The Derby" could refer to something different. If there's an article describing another topic also referred to as "The Derby", that can easily be handled with a WP:HATNOTE. As for which title is the most appropriate, I have no personal knowledge, but the article itself and the external links seem to indicate that Derby Stakes (which also redirects here) might be best. Propaniac (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd support a move to Derby Stakes, which is the official name of the race after all and consistent with other race titles. Likewise the article about the Grand National is titled just that and the "other" Nationals (Irish, Scottish etc) all have their articles titled appropriately. Same with the St Leger, 2,000 Guineas and so on. Does this also lead on to the Epsom Oaks being retitled too?--Bcp67 (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Skinsmoke, it is not as if the name is not used in reliable sources in the UK ("Epsom Derby 2010: Runners and riders" BBC). Until I read it hear I had never heard of the race being called the "Derby-Stakes" a web Google search of site:uk returns just 800 hits for that name while "Epsom-Derby" returns over 18,000 (Now days you need the dash and the quotes to stop Google returning other pattern matches). Assuming that the ratio is the same in reliable sources, this is a no-brainer (using WP:ENGVAR to justify the current name) PBS (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Derby Stakes. Simonc1 (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC) The Google search bringing up more hits for "Epsom-Derby" than "Derby-Stakes" is a red herring. Similar searches for correctly named "Masters-Tournament" golf only brings up 253,000 hits compared to 342,000 for the incorrectly named "US-Masters" golf. The fact remains that the name of the race is not "Epsom Derby". As PBS has pointed out, the Racing Post refers to the race as "Derby Stakes" or "Derby". Surely UK racing's only daily newspaper is the authoritative source. Simonc1 (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    PBS? Me, surely? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Who's Shirley? Simonc1 it does matter what the official name is, on Wikipedia things and people are named after the name used in reliable sources. If the reliable sources do not agree and there is no clear winner, then such things as the official name should be considered. BUT in this case as far as I can tell UK sources clearly support the usage of Epsom Derby over Derby Stakes. Now it may be that my extrapolation of a general search which included all UK web sites is not reflective of the usage in reliable sources. What is needed is a search of UK non redtop papers (eg the Times, Guardian, Telegraph and Independent etc), the BBC website, and specialised racing publications and (Google) books) to support the move by showing that Derby Stakes is considerably closer in usage in reliable to Epsom Derby than has been shown to date. We ought not back a 1/22 outsider and claim it is the favourite. -- PBS (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your google searching is all well and good, but it sadly proves nothing. It is patently obvious that there is no clear common name since most reliable sources seem to use more than one name at will. Therefore we must find consensus here amongst ourselves. As I see it there are essentially four viable options (in no particular order):
    1. Epsom Derby
    2. Derby Stakes
    3. Derby (horse race)
    4. The Derby
    My preference is for Derby Stakes, then Derby {horse race), followed by Epsom Derby, and lastly The Derby. wjematherbigissue 21:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
wjemather you worte "It is patently obvious that there is no clear common name since most reliable sources seem to use more than one name at will" But a closer examination of the reliable sources does not bear that out:
Website "Derby-Stakes" "Epsom-Derby" ratio
site:bbc.co.uk About 26 results About 846 results 1/32
site:timesonline.co.uk 2 results About 70 results 1/35
site:telegraph.co.uk 4 results About 374 results 1/68
site:independent.co.uk 5 results About 157 results 1/31
site:guardian.co.uk About 17 results About 296 results 1/17
site:www.racingpost.com 8 results About 366 results 1/46
Google Books (from 1980 to date) About 640 results About 3,340 results 1/5
Google Books (from 2000 to date) About 334 results About 1,790 results 1/5
Clearly "Derby-Stakes" is used very infrequently in British reliable sources compared to "Epsom-Derby" and Books over the last 30 years use the term Epsom Derby five times more often than Derby Stakes so we can put Derby Stakes to one side. Both "Derby (horse race)" and "The Derby" have disambiguation problems --More than one horse race is called a Derby -- and there is no need to disambiguate the page when we have a perfectly good common name used by reliable sources.
wjemather you worte "we must find consensus here amongst ourselves", that is true, but consensus is based around a local consensus and the the consensus as indicated by polices and guidelines (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines). It is clear in this case that the policy indicates we should leave the article at Epsom Derby.-- PBS (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are clear (I hope) that "The Derby" or "Derby" is by far the most common name for the race. Since it is also agreed that they are imprecise and ambiguous, a different title should be used. Article naming policy does not dictate that we choose the 3rd most common name as the title as you would try and have us believe. wjematherbigissue 00:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)8[reply]
As the "The Derby" or "Derby" are ambiguous then better to use the name "Epsom Derby" that is five to 68 times more likely to be used in reliable sources than "Derby Stakes". --PBS (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As already stated, I would prefer the proper name of the race first, a properly disambiguated title second, and then a fictional notion of what the race is called third. These sources you refer to are using the word Epsom to disambiguate, in order to avoid possible confusion with other Derby races, so usage of the phrase is irrelevant as far a the common name goes. If we did the same it would be "Derby (Epsom)". wjematherbigissue 11:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that when the race organisers themselves refer to the race without the name of the sponsor, it's variously "The Derby", "the Derby" or simply "Derby"; never "Derby Stakes" or "Epsom Derby"; similarly "the Oaks", not "Epsom Oaks" or "Oaks Stakes". See History; Derby History. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about "The Derby (horse race)"? It solves the disambiguation problem of "Derby" or "The Derby", has higher Google rates than "Derby Stakes", looks and sounds better than "Derby (horse race)" and is not the incorrect name like "Epsom Derby". I don't think you could expect to see the Kentucky or Irish Derbies or any other topic with this heading. There is a parallel with The Open ChampionshipSimonc1 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally include the word "the" in the title. "Derby (horse race)" (as used by Britannica, incidentally) or "Derby (English horse race)" is preferable.
Also, if they are truly so ambiguous that they should not be used as the title of the article, then I think there is probably the need for "Derby" and "The Derby" to redirect to a disambiguation page. wjematherbigissue 15:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stick with my !vote above to just leave the page where it is, but I want to say that Derby (horse race) would be a horrible title, since derby is a generic term for a horse race. It would be like locating an article about Bo Obama at the title Dog (canine), or an article about John Wayne's hat at Hat (headwear). If the article were to be titled "Derby" with a disambiguator, Derby (Epsom) or Derby (Epsom horse race) would be vastly preferable. Also, including "The", as in The Derby, may be acceptable per our naming conventions, if "The Derby" is understood to refer to this particular race, analogous to the title of the article The Crown. Comments above suggest that this is the case; the "The" should not be omitted based on a misunderstanding that there is a blanket rule against including it. Propaniac (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wanting to keep the current title is fair enough, but saying "Derby is a generic term for a horse race" leads me to believe, at the very least, that you have not read the article. Should it be determined that we move to a disambiguated title, it should include the words "horse race", and perhaps "English horse race" would be best.
There is no misunderstanding of the guidelines; WP:THE states quite clearly in the first sentence:
If the name of the article is not the title of a work, an official name, or another proper name, avoid the definite ("the") and indefinite ("a"/"an") articles at the beginning of a page name.
Since The Derby is not the official name, we should not include "the". wjematherbigissue 19:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your point is that this is the race that originated use of the word "derby" for a horse race, that's irrelevant. The name Derby (horse race) implies that there is more than one topic that "Derby" could refer to, and this article is about the one topic which is a horse race instead of a hat or a cigarette or a saltshaker. But there are dozens of horse races called derbies. The point of the parenthetical term is to disambiguate, and the term "horse race" does not do that. If this is the only English horse race that "derby" could refer to, that term might work, although it still seems to me that Epsom would probably be a clearer reference. And as for the part of WP:THE you quoted, the point you've apparently missed is that "The Derby" might be a proper name, and also that we have guidelines clearer than "we don't generally do that," which is what had been previously stated. Propaniac (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I missed nothing – we have already established that "Derby Stakes" is the proper correct name and "The Derby" is not, so I can see no reason to even consider that as an option. I'm sorry, but your analogies are not helping discussion because they are not analogous in any way. I also see no reason why the content of Derby (horse race) should not legitimately be merged into this article anyway – but that is another issue. wjematherbigissue 20:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The hell? You haven't "established" any of that at all. "Official name" is not the same thing as "Proper name." "Proper name" is a synonym for "proper noun," which essentially means a phrase commonly capitalized in the same way as a book title, e.g. "We are going to The Derby today." If it's common to treat "The Derby" as a proper noun, thus, our guidelines fully allow for including the "The". Propaniac (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Derby (horse race) should be merged into this article. The premise of that article is that there is enough of a common theme among various Derbies to justify an article. I don't believe there is evidence for that. The name "Derby (horse race)" would then be freed up for this article, if we agree it's best, as I do. The (horse race) disambiguation would be needed because of the article about the city Derby and I still maintain that the Kentucky, Irish and other Derbies are not as well known and are only referred to as "The Derby" if it has been clearly established by conversation which event was being referred to. The Open Championship remains the model. Simonc1 (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that we actually currently have an article at Derby (horse race), but that article is about exactly what an article with that title should be about: the generic concept of a derby. It is not about a specific derby race. I have no real opinion about whether we need an article about the generic concept of a derby, but locating an article about a specific derby, at a title that suggests an article about a generic derby or possibly about any of the other specific races known as a derby, is unnecessarily confusing. I agree that there's not a huge risk of serious confusion between this race and, for example, the Kentucky Derby (although the assertion that the Kentucky Derby is not as well known is ludicrous -- it's undoubtedly the most famous horse race in America by a wide margin), but if you're picking a new title, why would you go out of your way to pick one that's even somewhat unclear? Propaniac (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid you misunderstood my meaning, please read proper as in correct. I assume you agree that Derby Stakes is the correct name of the race?
Derby (horse race) is not about the concept of a derby, it is about how other derbies are named after this one, and there is no reason why that would not be in this article. wjematherbigissue 14:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Derby Stakes seems to be the official name of the race. What is meant by the "correct" name is not a clear concept; after all, you're not supporting a move to Derby Stakes because (IIRC) that's not the term commonly used. As I understand your arguments, you first said that there were four names commonly used to refer to this race, and that your first choice for the article title was the official name. Then you put the official name aside, because it's not commonly used. Then you put aside "Epsom Derby," because you didn't think that was a real "name" for the race, but simply a specification that the derby in Epsom, and not elsewhere, was being discussed. That left "Derby" or "The Derby," and you set aside "The Derby" because you did not think our naming guidelines allowed for inclusion of "The". I pointed out that yes, our naming guidelines do allow for "The Derby", if it's a proper name, and that "Derby" was a bad name because it could refer to many different races (which you had already said yourself!: "These sources you refer to are using the word Epsom to disambiguate, in order to avoid possible confusion with other Derby races"). Then you said we can't use "The Derby" because it's not the official name and it's not the correct name, but apparently you haven't addressed whether it's a proper name, because you said "proper name" to mean something completely different than how the guideline uses it (which, in my view, makes much less sense than that you misunderstood the guideline and won't admit it). So I remain unconvinced. Propaniac (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking my comments completely out of context. To be clear, hopefully in words you understand; the official, proper and correct name is "Derby Stakes". "Derby" is the common name. "The Derby" is neither the official name nor a proper name although it is occasionally used, and "Epsom Derby" is just a notional phrase. Per naming policy, "Derby" should be used, but since that is an article about the city, an article about the horse race obviously requires disambiguation. Are you getting this yet? wjematherbigissue 20:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get that you've changed your mind on whether "The Derby" is a common name (which doesn't have anything to do with whether it would be permitted as an article title or whether you understand what a proper name is, but does make that irrelevant). I don't get why you think that "Epsom Derby" is merely a "notional phrase" to indicate which Derby is under discussion, and is not an actual name used for the race; and, if it is simply used to make that clear, why should this article title be different from the 161,000 web pages that felt it necessary to make such an indication? Propaniac (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I did a news archive search of BBC uses of "the Derby". In skimming the first 20 results, I found 1 was about the Derby in Epsom; 3 were about the Kentucky Derby; and the others had nothing to do with horse racing. A search for "the derby" epsom finds 168 results, many of which use the phrase "Epsom Derby", and "Epsom Derby" gets 192 results. Propaniac (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you don't get it. I should have anticipated someone would be overly pedantic when I mad my earlier posts, which I have since clarified. Yet you are still harping on about the phrase "proper name", even after I made it clear that I had neglected the fact that the guidelines use that phraseology and was not using those words in that sense. I have also explained my view on why the word Epsom often precedes the word Derby. Redrose64 has also provided some illumination as to what names are used when disambiguation is not needed. I am at a loss to know what you are trying to do here and will not discuss this any further if you are going to continue in this vein. It is not helping to resolve the issue at hand, namely the title of this article. wjematherbigissue 00:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm afraid I'm just a total freakin' idiot and you'll have to tolerate my bumbling one way or another, as I'm not quite done yet: Yes, it's clear you neglected that part of the guidelines when you said "This situation doesn't qualify under the guidelines." You did not address whether that means you were incorrect, and that this situation DOES, or could, qualify under the guidelines, although it's irrelevant now because I think we're in agreement that "The Derby" would not be the best title anyway. And what I was originally trying to do here, in my original 18 August comment, was to make it clear to people participating in this discussion a) why, if we chose to name the article Derby (x), we should choose a better term for disambiguation than "horse race," and b) that Wikipedia policy does allow us to name the article "The Derby" if that would be the best title, since you had implied that that would not be permissible. It was a helpful clarification on Wikipedia guidance, and I honestly didn't expect any directed response, let alone a dispute. What happened after that is that you started an argument about what the guidelines meant, and then you started talking about the "correct" title even though that's not the one you're promoting for the article, and the strangeness of your argument led me to review your previous discussion and realize it made no sense, and eventually to question your assertion that the BBC uses "the Derby" much more than "Epsom Derby," and now I'm happier than ever with my !vote to leave the article at its current title. Propaniac (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, your opinion is now close to worthless. I neglected no part of the policy or guidelines, and my comments have been clear enough. You have, and continue to, deliberately misquote me.If you disagree with my view that is fine, but it is not acceptable to engage in what can only be described as attacks instead of countering with your own coherent arguments. You should strike all of your misleading comments and other false statements above. wjematherbigissue 18:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly would have been an idiot if I hadn't presumed long ago that my words weren't going to change your mind. I haven't attacked you, I've attacked (quite easily) the poor basis and self-contradicting logic that you've presented for your opinions. (I have also asked you to clarify your opinions, which you've ignored in favor of attacking me.) If this is about the "proper name" thing again: sigh. I said "The guidelines allow for this if it's a proper name." You said "It's not the correct name" and didn't address whether it was a "proper name" in the sense that the guidelines and I were using the term. We're in agreement now that it's not a proper name in that sense anyway. If this is about anything else I just said, you'll have to be more specific. Do you disagree that you started an argument about the meaning of the guidelines? Do you disagree that you asserted the BBC uses "the Derby" more often than "Epsom Derby"? I don't know. Propaniac (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to strike your 8 August comment ("I agree that Derby Stakes seems best...") as well. Also, note that if you are proposing to move an article to the title of an existing article, you should a) spell out what you want to do with the existing article (usually move to another specified title), and b) at minimum, leave some kind of notification on the Talk page of the existing article that its fate is being discussed elsewhere. Propaniac (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(a) I propose the existing Derby (horse race) be removed. The history section of this article already covers that article in an abbreviated form, which should be sufficient. Some of the rest that article is untrue e.g. Only one of the US triple crown races is known as a derby and I don't believe that the list of derby races, which makes up the rest of the article, has much point as the races have nothing in common except their name and a tendency to be championship races. (b) I have notified my proposal in Talk:Derby (horse race). Simonc1 (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, just FYI, the word is "struck," as in the past tense of "strike." Having "stuck" a vote is a typo. Propaniac (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the move to Derby (horse race) as well as the first proposed move. If a person is looking for their local Derby horse race the last thing they should need to do is negotiate their way through an article on a different horse race (as I assume you intend to tack the list into the see also section at the bottom and if not the last thing a person should need to do when reading an article about the Newmarket race is have to scroll past a list of similar named races (this why we have dab pages!)). The second reasons if an editor links to Derby (horse race) and it is not a dab page or something similar then it can be difficult to know if they are linked to the article they indented the link to go to, or if it is a false positive. So for those two reasons I think Derby (horse race) article should either stay as a {{SIA}} or be made into a plain {{disambiguation}} page. Simonc1 I think that if there is an error on the page Derby (horse race) it would be more constructive to fix it than to mention the error here. -- PBS (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's reasonable to think that someone searching for the Kentucky or Irish Derby would expect to find the race immediately by using just "Derby (horse race)". There would have to be a dab page, but "Derby (horse race)" would lead direct to the article. The history section (at the top of the article) already mentions the Kentucky, Irish, French and other derbies and that there are Group 1 races elsewhere in the world that use the name Derby. I think the entire article Derby (horse race) is flawed and should be deleted. There is no reason for it, because derbies are not a class of race, just a title for unrelated events. There are no entries for plate (another name for a few horse-races) or shield (a name for various horse-races and other sports events). The point about the editor links would presumably be over-ruled if the Derby (horse race) article is to be deleted? Simonc1 (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Epsom Derby is not the only derby. As mentioned by Skinsmoke, The Derby is not unambiguous. I would also oppose Derby (horse race) for the same reason. I can't say which is more appropriate Derby Stakes or Epsom Derby, but Epsom Derby has the benefit of describing both the location and event type. Side note, do take into account that this request should involve all the articles for the individual race years, they don't appear to be included at the this in the request. --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone disagree with that assessment? (I'm just trying to reduce the backlog at RM.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Derby Fair

[edit]
Derby Day by William Powell Frith c. 1850s

I have just finished cleaning up the article Garrat Elections, and I put in a link to this page, because for many years the Derby was a holiday for all classes of Londoners and I was struck by the similarity the the Garrat Elections had to that famous picture Derby Day (1858) by William Powell Frith (a clearer reproduction). To which most critics, note how relatively unimportant the racing is for many in the crowd.[1][2]

I think this article needs a section on the importance of the race as an unofficial holiday for London and its decline in the latter half of the 20th century until eventually the race day was moved form the traditional Thursday to Saturday. There is a BBC article that could be used to start go get some facts into a "Derby Fair" section of some other suitable name ( Century of tradition lost as Epsom Derby Fair scrapped" (4 June 2009)). -- PBS (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the late 19th Century, Parliament used to adjourn for the day, despite some objections, see this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerboy1966 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 16 December 2011‎

Pronunciation

[edit]

I changed the pronunciation in Britain from Dar-bee to Dah-bee. This is because British English is mainly non-rhotic: we generally don't pronounce the "r" sound after vowels. A non Br Eng speaker seeing Dar-bee could be misled about the exact British pronunciation.  Tigerboy1966  14:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's highly WP:Controversial as I am no 'fan' of Cornish to Herefordshire and Irish accents but nor am I their enemy and by having one phoneme /ar/ rather than /a/ and /r/ is the IPA:English alphabet means to allow for both varieties of British English. But as the race is so far to the south-east which dominates in population and broadcasting merely stating facts, your editing can stay, based on the wikipedia consensus elsewhere (as it stands). Those provinces sharing in the American 'r' might hold sway when English further standardizes!- Adam37 Talk 16:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sufficient inline citations

[edit]

At time of writing the article has six inline citations and various "references". Sections (e.g., the lead and history sections) are presented with no (or minimal) inline citations. Twice today i have tagged the article with the maintenance tag with template: more footnotes, which explanatory prose states "this article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations."

Twice the tag has been removed. perhaps the editor removing it fails to comprehend the distinction between template:more footnotes (some inline citations; some broad references possibly covering assertions with no inline citations), template:refimprove (more citations needed) and template:no footnotes. The removing editor requested that this topic be brought to the talk page; here it is. The article is failing in inline citations...short and sweeet. regards. --96.232.126.27 (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor referred to above. With 31,000+ edits I do not need lectures on referencing policy from an IP editor who joined the project 3 weeks ago and has less than 100 edits. The "problem" appears to be that there are no reliable sources to back up the facts that the Derby is run in June over a distance of one and a half miles. Gosh, that's a tough challenge. Give me a minute and I'll get back.  Tigerboy1966  21:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There you go. What's next? Want a reference for the fact that grass is green?  Tigerboy1966  22:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from an editor who joined 3 weeks ago and has less than 100 edits. I use an IP and that changes at whim of my service provider.

Now, to the lack-of-inline-citations problem again. For example, at this writing, there is one citation in the entire "history" section (toward the beginning). What is source for the balance of that section's prose? regards.--96.232.126.27 (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say: "at this writing", "what is source for the balance" etc. I'm guessing that English is not your first language. You will need to take more time to express your ideas with greater clarity and precision if I am to engage with you in a meaningful and productive way.  Tigerboy1966  22:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for the unnecessarily aggressive and pompous tone of the above comments. Tigerboy1966  08:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epsom Derby page move

[edit]

This was recently moved from Epsom Derby to The Derby Stakes without any approved consensus. This title is wrong. The race is not called The Derby Stakes, instead it is called The Derby, or Derby Stakes. Please either move this article back, or move it to The Derby, or to Derby Stakes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoarse Horse (talk • contribs) 12:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The name was discussed in August 2010 (point 7 above), no consensus at that point. Needs a proper discussion again prior to moving, as does the Epsom Oaks article. Also, we don't usually see the definite article used in horse race titles. Will mention this move at the Horse Racing project for discussion. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I restored it to Epsom Derby pending further discussion per WP:BRD. Status quo previals until a new consensus is reached unless there is some pressing emergency. I take no position on actual titling, I shall leave that to you Brits and reliable sources. That said, we Yanks are familiar with it as the Epsom Derby, just saying... if you rename it to the Derby, you'll need to add a hatnote to the Kentucky Derby for US readers (acknowledging the historical precedence of this one, of course) Montanabw(talk) 00:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This [3] from 1859 shows that "Epsom Derby" has a long history as a term for the race. There are literally hundreds of uses of the phrase in the 1870's and 80's. I could probably find earlier references but this seems sufficient. Tigerboy1966  18:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point being that the race was being called the Epsom Derby several years before the Kentucky Derby was founded. Tigerboy1966  18:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Epsom Derby is common in use in the UK nowadays as well, a recent story from the BBC [4] uses the phrase and the Independent newspaper coverage is headed Epsom Derby [5]. No doubt that the race's official name is the Derby Stakes, but its commonly called the Epsom Derby, much as the Gold Cup is inevitably called the Ascot Gold Cup. My preference is to retain the names Epsom Derby and Epsom Oaks for the two Classics. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is not the only race where the "unofficial" name is better known than the "official" name. right now the Kentucky Derby is the "Kentucky Derby Presented by Yum! Brands" and I will rot in hell before I would let the WP article title reflect such a travesty of greed and commercialism. Just saying I defer to the UK horse racing crowd, but you folks seem to have it under control here, so just adding my !vote to the dogpile. Montanabw(talk) 23:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 May 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. At this point, based on the discussion here and above, it's clear that anything other than a full-blown RFC to get uninvolved opinions would simply be beating a dead horse (pun intended); the only people invested in this discussion seem to be polarized to their opinions and everyone is largely rephrasing their own arguments. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Epsom Derby → Derby Stakes – I am aware of the previous discussions, but feel the arguments used have been factually lax and misleading. Using the paradigm example of The Open Championship, which is not titled "The British Open", this page should either be called "Derby Stakes" (historically supported by Roger Mortimer's book "The History of the Derby Stakes" (1962)) or "The Derby Stakes" (c.f. Michael Church's "The Derby Stakes" of 2006.) There is not, and never was, a race called "Epsom Derby", nor is that colloquially widely used amongst British racing fans, many of whom find the term "Epsom Derby" as offensive as golf fans find "The British Open". The usage "Epsom Derby" is culturally specific, having originated in the USA, a country intent on giving "The Kentucky Derby" parity with the English original; and though Wikipedia should acknowledge its colloquial usage, it is factually wrong and culturally completely inappropriate to continue to use the title "Epsom Derby". It is frustrating that this issue continues, so many years after the erroneous page title was flagged up by knowledgeable editors.Zarzuelauk (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I disagree. As a Canadian, I think of the race as THE Derby (the Stakes always comes as a surprise!). Obviously there should be a redirect for Epsom Derby, but we should lead with the correct name and give the alternate names afterward IMO. Jlvsclrk (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The statement The usage "Epsom Derby" is culturally specific, having originated in the USA, a country intent on giving "The Kentucky Derby" parity with the English original in the original post is factually incorrect as the British usage of the phrase pre-dates the Kentucky race. see the previous discussion. Tigerboy1966  07:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems like this issue just wont go away. Under WP:COMMONNAME and many Google searches the current name used by the British Racing Authority is The Investec Derby. No Stakes, no Epsom no Epsom Downs. Hence, to avoid any further complications and purists who want to have literally every correct title spelled out - You cannot on our WP. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Definitely NOT "Derby Stakes" which is something of a "made-up" name. While in many respects, this one is The Derby, and the redirect actually would probably be the most correct name in terms of simple purity, the way the race is tagged with corporate sponsorship (Investic now, Everready a few years ago... sigh), there's an argument for the "common name" protocol and keeping it as is... even the UK press says "Epsom Derby" as here. My take is "The Derby" or "Epsom Derby" but not "Derby Stakes". Yuck Montanabw(talk) 01:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The two arguments above are profoundly flawed, with some factual inaccuracies. "Derby Stakes" is not "something of a 'made-up' name" but supported by leading reference books such as Roger Mortimer's, cited above. The official BHA (British Horseracing Authority sic.) name of the race is "The Investec Derby (registered as The Derby Stakes)", recognising the temporary nature of the sponsorship: Group 1 races in the UK all are registered with Wetherby's (not the BHA) and that company always protects their names in this way, to make sure the original is not lost. Just because the press uses common parlance does not mean that parlance is correct, and Wikipedia needs to be in the business of publishing the factual name, with common parlance obviously as a link. What's not to like about this common sense solution? (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that - I thought that might be how it worked. The question before us is then whether the proposed move should be done. And secondarily, if the preamble should state that the race is also known as the Epsom Derby in other parts of the world to distinguish it from other versions. (Did you know there are at least 29 Derbies in the US alone - probably more, since I was looking at the graded stakes listing and some Derbies aren't elibible for grading due to restrictions). Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If this were a British-only site then the only answer would be "The Derby" (I cant remember anyone talking about "the Derby Stakes" even if it is the official name). "The Derby" however could mean different things in different countries: it's a bit like the football/ soccer debate which also keeps being revived, and always ends the same way. btw The Derby and Derby Stakes both redirect here anyway. Tigerboy1966  07:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Colours

[edit]

Colours are wrong for 1988 - Kahyasi won in the Aga Khan's alternative colours, chocolate and green hoops - originally the colours of Aga Khan III. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

These link to an RAF officer from World War I & II. --JustSawThis (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now repointed to an appropriate redlink --Bcp67 (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs rewriting

[edit]

The Derby has been run for some 230 years with no break and was formerly a day of great celebration. Until the late Victorian period Parliament used to adjourn so they could watch the racing. Until the '70s local school children (including me) used to get the day off for the great race. It's history was everywhere from names of pubs, to street names and to local celebrity trainers. It was never ever referred to as The Epsom Derby but then the Kentucky Derby meant nothing to us anyway. Times change and the guardians of this site continue to argue over the name ignoring the fact that the history of this important national race is largely missing for this poorly written and frankly boring entry. Where for example is a bibliography? Where is mention of the scandals of Bentinck? where is mention of Augustus Egg's famous image of Derby Day etc? where is the mention of the royal connections from Edward VII onwards., Under the heading Popular Culture we have one line.... yes one line. I would write something but no doubt the righteous wiki guardians would tell me I was wrong. Thanks for reading this.dorkinglad (talk) Reassigned heading dorkinglad (talk)

If you have the sources, by all means add. I expect it will be hard to know where to stop. For example, Murder Must Advertise starts with a bit about the office drawing for names for a Derby pool - a clever way to introduce a bunch of names. "Must be in on the jolly old sweep, what?" Jlvsclrk (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You will find a lot of information on the personalities and scandals in the articles on the individual Derby winners.81.174.162.70 (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

time

[edit]

why isn't 1941 the fastest winner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.199.231.18 (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a wartime substitute race run on the July Course at Newmarket. The record time is for the traditional Epsom course. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winning distances

[edit]

Putting this here for now.

  • 1812, 1822 "half a neck" I've rendered this as a "head"
  • 1815 "half a head" = short head
  • 1837 "a head, a neck or half a length" = neck
  • 1853 "short half length" = half a length

Other non-standard distances to be added. Tigerboy1966  07:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions re "official name"

[edit]

The following text has recently been added to the lead. Having being reverted, it has been re-added.

"The nomenclature 'Epsom Derby' is a popular, journalistic convenience - especially in the United States of America, where it is used to differentiate The Derby from younger races, such as the Kentucky Derby or Florida Derby. It has no official basis."

At best this is WP:SYNTHESIS of the source provided ([6]), but realistically it simply does not support a single word of this paragraph. The paragraph is also misleading, in that "Epsom Derby" is very widely used in the UK, and somewhat repeats the preceding paragraph.

In addition, this concept is now WP:UNDUE in the lead (only about 50% is now about the race itself) and is already discussed within the lead and History section, which I think is probably sufficient (if also unsourced). If necessary, expansion should not be in the lead. Thoughts please. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion which crops up from time to time - could do with its own section I think and shifting out of the lead. A quick look in news media in the UK sees varieties of uses; the BBC goes for Epsom Derby, Epsom Derby: Serpentine stuns rivals to give Aidan O'Brien record eighth victory, the Guardian prefers the Derby Jockeys under fire after Serpentine pulls off shock with all-the-way win in Derby while the Racing Post seems to use Investec Derby mostly, but as the racing game's trade paper it would be more natural to include the sponsor's name.--Bcp67 (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Epsom_Derby&oldid=1204622021"