Talk:Melbourne Cup

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

Betting[edit]

The claim that 'In 2000 it was estimated that 80% of the adult Australian population placed a bet on the race through legal betting agencies such as Tabcorp' is an incorrect interpretation of the reference source. The direct link to the reference is now dead, but a cached version is found here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20041029024402/http://www.tablimited.com.au/news.asp?NCID=1&NID=100

the quote from the NSW TAB's press release, as per the link, is:
Approximately 80% of the Australian adult population are expected to place a bet on the outcome of the race, with betting through TAB Limited (NSW) alone expected to reach $40 million on the Cup and over $60 million on the entire day’s racing.
not totally sure if entering a sweep is placing a bet but the 80% claim makes it likely in my experience that sweeps are probably included.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 10:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The site claims that 80% of the adult population will make a bet, not necessarily with betting agencies, and even then it is not a figure substantiated after the race took place. Anyone familiar with the Melbourne Cup knows that almost all workplaces in Australia have their own betting pools for the race, which would account for a large percentage of that figure.

I'm going to change the wording of the Melbourne Cup article, and fix the reference link. Remy B 18:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Even schools commonly ran Melbourne Cup sweepstakes, in the 70's and 80's. Don't know if they still do. Singkong2005 03:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I know of at least one school that ran a sweep this year.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 10:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

There should be a section on the betting side of the Cup. This gambling has massive economic and social impact, and is the most important part of the cup. I quick search reveals it is much easier to find information on how to bet than on how much gets bet. Bendav (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

2005[edit]

The list of horses in the 2005 race is here: 2005 Melbourne Cup. It would be nice to get the results up there as soon as they come through Astrokey44 03:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

-Haha, that was quick. Race just ended and it's updated - you crazy Wikipedians

Photos[edit]

Maybe I am missing something, but this article would benefit greatly from photos of the racing and fashion. --203.214.87.207 04:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Its copyright restrictions that is usually the problem. If you have a non-copyright photo youd like to upload please do so Astrokey44 04:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The photo of Glenn Boss and Makybe Diva after the 2005 Melbourne Cup is poor quality. Should it be removed?
Yes, it should be. Grumpyyoungman01 21:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is just another example of the growing trend in wikipedia articles toward lower quality content over fair use issues which are dubious at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.73.246 (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Handicap[edit]

After reading the article, I find myself wanting to know more about the handicap. Is anyone able to provide more information? -- CraigKeogh 05:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a combination of weight for age, and handicap. See Spring Grand Slam. Cheers Moriori 07:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Per-year articles[edit]

Am I correct in assuming that the only article for a specific Cup is 2005 Melbourne Cup? It would be great to have an artical for each year, listing all the competitors. I'm having trouble though finding anything other than the winners for each year. If anyone can find some more complete records that'd be great. TPK 07:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes thats right it being the only one. maybe you could make a stub on the 2003 cup based on this article - pretty short but thats all I could find [1] Astrokey44 12:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Details of all runners and results for all Melbourne Cups are available at this site [2]. Eric. 58.84.87.48 06:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Thankyou, that's exactly what I was looking for - but was too lazy to find! :-) TPK 08:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
We appear to have articles on the 1999 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 cups. Any thoughts as to how these could be organised? Linking from List of Melbourne Cup winners would be a good idea. Also, some time in the next few hours, I expect this link to turn blue. Michael Billington (talkcontribs) 23:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at [3] as it has all details relating to the Melbourne Cup. Official site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joseph C.P. McGrath (talkcontribs) 03:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Dog's breakfast[edit]

The article looked a bit like a dog's breakfast to me, not just because of the repetition of text and it seemed to have grown like Topsy, but because of messy presentation. Whatever happened to good old prose? Why do we need boxes where simple prose will do? I've been bold and done a rewrite. Moriori 01:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

agreed. you don't want to expand the history, do you! I would but I don't have any references. Nomadtales 22:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect Information[edit]

There is a statement in this article that there were no races in the 1890's. However, the list of winners clearly shows that there were races. I think what was meant was there was no trophy but I can not be sure as I don't have a reference. 61.68.170.39 00:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect section has been removed. I can not find anything about no trophy being awarded. (dark horse 23:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

External link[edit]

I've added an external link to NZHistory.net.nz's Melbourne Cup page which includes information and video clips of some of the top NZ performances since Martini Henry won in 1883. I hope this is considered an appropriate addition. Jamie Mackay (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That looks like an appropriate EL, it has some interesting information and images. I'd also recommend that editors should be cautious in using it as a source because it lists Wikipedia, though some of the other source would be useful in expanding this article. Gnangarra 08:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration Resources[edit]

To kick off the collaboration, these articles on other major horse races may be useful reading - Epsom Derby, Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe, Japan Cup and Kentucky Derby. The Featured Article Thoroughbred is worth reading as background.

The following online links may assist contributors in the collaboration:

History of the Emirates Melbourne Cup

Melbourne Cup

Aussie Punter.com

Melbourne Cup and Racing Fashion

History of Fashion

Tote Topics 1968


- Cuddy Wifter (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Japan Cup - Dubai - Dubai - Arc[edit]

It is the richest and most prestigious "two-mile" handicap in the world, and the second richest turf race in the world, after the Japan Cup in Tokyo. [1] This a factual. The Japan Cup is worth nearly twice as much as the Melbourne Cup. Wallie (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

From Japan Cup

The Japan Cup (ジャパンカップ ,Japan Kappu?, JPN G-1) is the most prestigious horse race run in Japan. It is contested at the end of November at Tokyo Racecourse in Fuchu, Tokyo at a distance of 2400 meters (about 1 ½ miles) over the grass. With a purse of ¥533 million (about US $4.6 million), the Japan Cup is the richest race on turf in the world, [1] and one of the richest horse races in the world.

From Melbourne Cup

Purse AUD$5.5 million (about USD$3.4 million)

Current Rates:

  • Japan Cup $5.4 Million US Dollars
  • Melbourne Cup $3.9 million US Dollars
I undid your edit because the reference you cited was to a horse racing "game" and did not mention the value of the Japan Cup. Wallie, when are yo going to stop this anti-Australia crusade you have recently embarked upon. I am getting tired of your disruptive edits. Please stop. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 22:40, 16 April

2009 (UTC)

I am not anti-Australian. I stick to facts. Unfortunately some of the articles have become rather from an Australian perspective. I in fact changed the Phar Lap article earlier because it was becoming too pro-New Zealand. If I were anti-Australian, then I would have removded the fact that the Melbourne Cup is even the second most expensive Turf Race. I think that both the Japan Cup and the Prix de L'Arc are bigger. Wallie (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Two Dubai races are worth 5 million (both turf) - Melbourne Cup 3.9 million.
  • So, Japan Cup, two Dubai races and the Arc are all worth more than the Melbourne Cup.

Wallie (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the Dubai turf races are worth less than the Melb Cup - they always publish the AUD value of races like that in Aust form guides. The World Cup is def worth more but I don't think the turf races are. In any event it's a bad measure - if you did the figures mid 2008 when the AUD was close to 1USD you get a massively different result than doing it now. Tigerman2005 (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Melbourne Cup Day holiday[edit]

The part about this being the only public holiday for a horse race is incorrect. Adelaide Cup Day is a public holiday in South Australia. See http://www.safework.sa.gov.au/show_page.jsp?id=2483 Tigerman2005 (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Walcha Cup meeting also has a half day holiday.Cgoodwin (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that would be a gazetted holiday, more like some sort of accepted local practice. I doubt a local council could call a public holiday at least in terms of shops needing to pay penalty rates etc. Tigerman2005 (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Melbourne Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


Starting Time Changed[edit]

There's no mention of this on the page currently, but I'm sure the race used to be at 3:10 PM for many years and has recently changed to 3PM exactly. I just spoke to someone who was 100% confident it was 3:10 PM. It's "always" been 3:10 PM, etc.

Can anyone find a reference for when the starting time changed and add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.27.141.68 (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring[edit]

I am posting a note here that this edit and the multiple previous attempts to add this material is unacceptable due to the following wikipedia policies. First, the image is clearly a copyvio from the linked source, and I have nominated it for speedy deletion at Commons for that reason. Second, the link is to a commercial-for-profit betting site, a violation of WP:NOADS plus the information that was trying to be added is all mentioned in the article on the racetrack and thus is redundant here. (Plus it's a close paraphrase) Montanabw(talk) 16:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


Moved from Montanabw talk[edit]

(Moved here by Montanabw so all active editors may participate in the discussion) Hi Montanabw!

I followed your recommendation and read all the page Wikipedia:External_links and didn't find the case of regarding the edition I did to the value Melbourne Cup.

Please tell me which point is the one that you think that aplies here.

Besides that, as I already stated, the text and the picture are high quality and very relevant to the value. I don't understand what's going on.

Waiting for your reply,

Regards, Sebastiansta (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Sebastiansta

As other editors have been trying to explain to you, we have no need for an enormous diagram of disproportionate size, particularly when it appears to be copyrighted, and it is not properly sourced by using a spamlink to a commercial site. Please read WP:NOADS and take further discussion to the article talk page. Montanabw(talk) 16:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I removed the diagram again...it was taking up way too much space and looked copy-pasted from somewhere else. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 16:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
Let's take this to the article talk page, or that of the user. Montanabw(talk) 16:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I will address what you said:

1. You are using a copyrighted image: I Have permission to use it. Also there is no copyright over the image (in fact, I will citate you: "it appears to be copyrighted") 2.You are using a for-profit betting site as a source: There is a lot of for-profit betting sites as resources. In fact many of the big bookmakers have their own article in Wikipedia: William Hill (bookmaker). As you may know, they are legal companies (you might like them or not, but that is your personal issue) 4. and the material is not necessary for the article: The material is just for the article. Is the race course of the race.....

If the issue is the image size, we can talk about that, but the issue seems different here.

The other editor didn't explain to me anything. Just remove the material.

Please, just objective facts, not a lot of: appears to, seems to, intention to.

Is there any big editor's authority? I think that this exceeds already the common sense.

Sebastiansta (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Sebastiansta

You uploaded the image as your own work, that alone qualifies as a copyright violation; only the owner of the image has the authority to release copyright, via the WP:OTRS system. It is irrelevant that William Hill has a WP article, it does not make their web page a reliable source for info about the track, and furthermore, that information is more appropriate for the article about the track, not this race. The "big editor authority" are the policies and guidelines of wikipedia that I have already posted to you at your talk page. The image is out and the text you tried to add (which is also close to a copyvio because you've pretty much just rephrased what is said at the link you cited) is also out. Furthermore, as your primary edits seem to be to the William Hill page and this one, I suspect you also work for that company and may therefore fall under the conflict of interest rules here or are engaging in paid advocacy, which is also subject to restrictions, noted here: WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. Now, please drop the issue; two experienced editors have told you this is not permissible and why - repeatedly. Montanabw(talk) 18:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Melbourne Cup. 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 regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 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) 01:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)