Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

San Diego sports curse

has been nominated for deletion. Come on over and participate in the discussion....William 15:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thoroughbred ages

Is there a WP standard anywhere, as in an MOS, for listing a thoroughbred's age according to its January 1 date of its birth year? For example, St Nicholas Abbey's listing here. Thank you. — Wylie pedia 10:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know about an official WP MOS, but all Thoroughbred horses born in the Northern Hemisphere have a birthday of 1 January and Southern Hemisphere horses age on 1 August. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 20:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Froggerlaura. I checked on the Jan/Aug info when the edit war began at Deaths in 2014 and added the "rule" at its Talkpage. Most there go by foal date, since that is what the page goes by with people deaths (DOBs). — Wylie pedia 21:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, he passed in 2014, so no argument there. There is "official" and "actual," probably need to list both. But on a more useful topic, anyone want to join with me and bring this article to FAC? I'm so bummed that colic got him, he beat both the broken leg and laminitis... sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 23:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

According to one comment there, the convention is "nonsensical". We'd better change 200+ years of thoroughbred history then! --Bcp67 (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you shoot me a link to this discussion? I think every member of WPEQ and WP Horse racing would agree on that! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 19:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Deaths in 2014#Thoroughbred horse age --Redrose64 (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

New article, notable?

Joshua_Tree_(horse). Notable enough? Montanabw^(talk) 09:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Triple winner of the Canadian International, and a Pattern race winner in England and France - notable enough for me. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Got this pic of him if anyone interested in improving article. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 16:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not, but I suppose it would be gracious if someone were to pop it into the article, and maybe an infobox too. Incidentally, can anyone find a free image of Wise Dan? He deserves one. Montanabw^(talk) 02:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll be on it as soon as I finish She's a Tiger. Tigerboy1966 22:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No rush. I think I have my Kentucky Oaks horse for 2014, so long as she stays sound. And learns to run in a straight line... ;-P Montanabw^(talk) 04:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Added infobox an pic. JT is one of those horses like Presvis and Ibn Bey who never get the attention they deserved in the UK as they produced their best runs overseas. Tigerboy1966 20:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Woodward Stakes top three finishers

or top three finishers articles in general. They're categorized in much the same way as the articles on the races themselves. It shouldn't be like that. The Woodward Stakes is a sporting event established in 1954 and a Grade 1 horse race, the top three article isn't. I'm going to create a Grade 1 horse race top three finishers category and recategorize these article. I won't start work on it till Monday, after I take part in Catholic Men's retreat this weekend. Feel free to comment and I'll check back in here before starting work on those articles....William 15:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

HUH? Montanabw^(talk) 02:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

What don't you understand? The Woodward Stakes articles is a recurring sporting event established in 1954. An article about the top three finishers in each Woodward isn't a recurring sporting event established in 1954. These articles aren't categorized right....William 15:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

So you are bringing this here because...? I guess I disagree with you, I see the category as being the same for both, where would you put the list articles about such races otherwise? And also, good luck finding all the "lists of finishers" articles in WP Horse racing or elsewhere, I don't think such a category exists... I guess a discussion is fine, but I'm not seeing a problem here. Montanabw^(talk) 20:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes - looks like a solution without a problem to me. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems I'm talking to people as thick as a board. A article about a horse finishing win, place, or show in a stakes race is NOT a sporting event established in 1954. The same article isn't a stakes race article either. The article about the stakes race is. So these articles have been wrongly categorized. That is a problem....William 21:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A problem for whom? Tigerboy1966 22:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Not me. Montanabw^(talk) 04:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree with William. The "top three" lists can't really be described as events and shouldn't be categorised as such. While creating List of Grand National first four placings I consciously omitted "events" categories. I'd be glad to see similar articles follow suit. Zafonic (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The proper category is 'Horse racing-related lists' or a new category of it. Arkansas Derby top three finishers is already categorized as such. May I also point out, articles like List of Masters Tournament champions or List of French Open women's singles champions aren't categorized 'Sporting events established in 1934' or 'Sporting events established in 1897'. Only the article about the event is and that goes for a whole slew full of other similar sports artciles. These top 3 or 4 finisher horse racing articles are wrongly categorized....William 14:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, so I guess my question is "who is going to do this work" - I also have issues with people wanting categories deleted without replacing them with some logical parallel category or verifying that there is cross-wikilinking or see also linking so that related articles can be located. I guess I personally have no kick with the concept except where it will make a bunch of things harder to find. I'd say the other WP Horse racing people can offer an opinion as to what would be a proper category name or concept. Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

These top three and four articles should really be renamed. What they are is list articles. Woodward Stakes top three finishers should be List of Woodward Stakes top three finishers. That's the standard naming....William 23:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I am at a loss to understand why these top 3 finisher lists actually exist. The winners of races are already included in the race article. If a list of 2nd and 3rd placegetters is deemed notable, there is no reason why this information could not be merged with the existing race article. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting question; I suppose it is notable for the big races to have a record of who hit the board. I suppose the race article templates pretty much just list the winners. How many articles are we talking here, anyway? Frankly, though, I see no need for rename, one is as good as the other. Montanabw^(talk) 06:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say that we don't need lists of top-three finishers. Even a race with a 233-year history like the Epsom Derby has only a list of winners - and that's incorporated into the main article, not spun off as a separate page. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw, Wikipedia has has a manual of style, one page of which is WP:Article titles. There is also WP:NCLIST for what list articles should be named....William 15:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't lecture me about the MOS, I've been here longer than you have; I DISAGREE with your view on titling and was inviting a discussion about how many articles we are dealing with. Please avoid getting on a high horse about this. Montanabw^(talk) 02:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The more pressing issue besides what the article should be named or how it should be categorized is that:
1) it's out of date for the past two years
2) the source cited only is valid up until 2008, so where did those 2009-2011 results come from?
3) the race was founded in 1954 yet the list arbitrarily begins in 1971, why?
I also agree with Redrose64 and that these should be included in the main article. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 17:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that the lists of top 3 finishers are interesting and useful and do no harm. Does anyone disagree? Tigerboy1966 21:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the existence of these article. They do need to be renamed and categorized correctly....William 22:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they do any harm, and also I see no need to rename just to add more words. Though if William wants to go rename a few dozen articles, I won't edit-war with him, no matter how silly I think it is. No policy or moral imperative says that we have to say "list of..." every fricking time. There is an argument to be made that we could merge to the main articles if someone wants to make the charts include top three ... after all, they all pay out at the parimutuel windows... The recategorization scheme seems silly too. I suppose a "lists of top finishers" category would be modestly helpful, and I suppose if William wants to remove ONLY the "established in [year]" cat, that does no harm. But this is such a waste of bandwidth when, as Froggerlaura points out, we could instead just be updating statistics or something that is actually useful. Oh, and note from the guideline: "For example, Dodge Charger is a list of cars named Dodge Charger, but does not need to be titled List of cars named Dodge Charger." Montanabw^(talk) 02:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

William has found another solution without a problem - races included in categories under their original title - e.g. Neptune Investment Management Novices' Hurdle. How about some discussion before just going ahead with the change? --Bcp67 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

And prefers just to re-state his change, quoting golf articles, rather than discuss it here. I have reverted the change again. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As I pointed out, sports articles that have changed names are categorized 'established in' by the main page. Look at John Deere Classic and Pocono IndyCar 500 for example. Both established in 1971 but under different names....William 21:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

William, my point is this - you may be right, but generally on the Horse Racing project we've come up with ideas and discussed them first here rather than just diving in and making the changes. What's right for golf or car racing may not be right for this project, but it needs to established by discussion and consensus not by unilateral decision. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Posthumous awards

I'm starting an article for Points Offthebench, and thought it might be DYK-worthy that he won the Eclipse Award posthumously. Trying to think of any precedents the only one's I could come up with were Ruffian and Go For Wand. Anyone know of any others? Tigerboy1966 19:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that's your hook. And you got all I can think of. Unless Barbaro got some sort of posthumous award, and he lived over a year after his injury, so it wouldn't be the same situation as getting an actual racing award for the year he competed... I can't think of any others. I don't think Eight Belles qualified for anything. Montanabw^(talk) 03:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I actually found a few others: Swale, Landaluce, Left Bank, Pompeyo. So it looks like P Otb is the SEVENTH posthumous winner (which is a little worrying: the only example from Europe's equivalent Cartier Awards would be Mr Brooks and he died in the BC) Tigerboy1966 20:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Awards all given for performances in the year of death? Montanabw^(talk) 01:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"Octagonal"

"Apollo Eleven"

Related to this and the previous thread, I suggest that Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing/Article alerts be put on the watchlist of interested parties. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Especially as they SNOWed this one and moved it within 8 hours of it going up. Montanabw^(talk) 19:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, you've been busy...

User 70.50.148.248, you've been very, very busy requesting article moves and making a lot of edits to horse racing articles. I suggest you would be well advised to create a user name which would facilitate your wikignoming work. Unless, of course, you are not a new wikipedian. Just saying. Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Inbreeding question

I know this isn't a racehorse, but you guys are the gurus. How inbred is this horse to his ancestor Negatiw? Is 3x4x4x4 the correct way to show this? And in the cosmic scheme of things, how MUCH inbreeding would you folks view this horse as having? (@Tigerboy1966: and @Froggerlaura:) Montanabw^(talk) 06:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

3x4x4x4 or 3 x 4 x 4 x 4. How inbred that is would depend on the context: for a stallion to appear four times in the first four generations of a pedigree would be most unusual in a modern Tb, but I don't know about Arabs. Tigerboy1966 07:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's a gelding, so not a moral issue, and as they say, if it works, it's "Linebreeding", if it doesn't work, it's "inbreeding." LOL! When you say "most unusual," would that include the fascination US Breeders have with "linebreeding" everything to Northern Dancer with the linked risk of early lameness and crappy hooves? I ask because I have a side interest in figuring out how much inbreeding is bad and leads to the risk of inbreeding depression, how much inbreeding simply creates an increased risk of autosomal recessive genetic disorders, and how much "fixes" breed traits - very difficult to find objective analyses that are also readable by someone without a master's in genetics. BTW, if any TPSers of this project would enjoy doing an informal peer review of a non-racehorse article, this concerns Thunder (mascot), which I may put up for FAC if folks think it can get there. Montanabw^(talk) 02:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

MMM at PR

Anyone here interested in providing a peer review on another race horse article I hope to take to FAC: Mucho Macho Man. I need both horsey and non-horsey eyes on this to see where I may need to improve the article. Please feel free to give it a very critical eye; I will most certainly get a critical eye at FAC and would prefer to fix any obvious problems before I get there. The peer review request is here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Mucho Macho Man/archive1 . Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 21:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Jockey Colours for 1,2,3

Please refer to Special:Contributions/JockeyColours

I posted the following message to User:JockeyColours:

Could you please stop any further additions of jockey colour images for 1, 2, & 3 to existing horse racing articles. Before anyone starts to make changes to multiple articles it is normal practice to explain on the Talk page what your intentions are and to seek the opinions of other members of the project.

Is it your intention to provide these images for all races or just some races?
Are you only going to provide them for the years 2013 and 2014? If so, why?
What is your connection to jockeycolours.com
Are you providing these images to promote the website?

Please reply on the Talk page. Thank you. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my editing of these pages caused offence. As a newcomer it is not necessarily easy to know what should and shouldn't be done. Now I have been told!

My intention was to add a bit of colour to these pages. Surely not a bad thing?

I have started with 2013 and planned to add 2014 as and when the results come in this week.

If I could find the motivation, and especially if there was any enthusiasm from others, I would continue to add previous years - gets much harder going back more than 8 years as I don't have the data at my fingertips.

JockeyColours.com is my website. Promoting the website was not my goal, but if people are interested in horse racing colours then I hope they will visit!

JockeyColours (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@JockeyColours:, I am uncertain if your website is just a fan site or if you are in the business of selling silks. If the latter, per WP:COI we may have a problem. If the former, why is is on your user page? On WP, we are quite strict about WP:NOADS having no advertising, but on the other hand, if you are more like iMdb or something, I'd still recommend you tone it down, but if your goal is to put more images of racing silks into wikipedia, I can see some benefit to doing that, though, like Cuddy Wifter, I do urge you to proceed with some caution and consensus. JMO. Montanabw^(talk) 22:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Thanks for your comments. I can confirm that JockeyColours.com is not selling anything. I'm not sure why you query the fact that the website is referenced on my user page (I didn't want it to be totally blank), but am happy to remove it if you consider it to be inappropriate.

Moving forwards I would like to complete the upload of 2014 Cheltenham colours and then perhaps extend backwards to cover (maybe) the last 5 years. After that I could perhaps move on to Aintree and Punchestown? My personal view is that the jockey silks are very evocative and bring back memories of the race in a way that simply listing the winner cannot. I therefore hope that you will agree to include them on the Horse Racing pages where appropriate. (JockeyColours (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC))

As far as I can see, the website isn't selling anything but it would be a good idea to remove it from your user page. I like adding the colours to pages, especially when there are no other images: at the moment too many racing articles are text only. Tigerboy1966 08:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I also like these colours, they look professional and they add some interest to articles - seems like there is no commercial purpose to them, so I don't see any reason for them to go. Placement on the page might need looking at though as they do sometimes lead to a chunk of white space appearing alongside the colours. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Win

Place

show

Winners of the Foo race

@JockeyColours:, your web site was down yesterday when I was trying to access it. I think that Tigerboy is correct that you kind of give an impression of a COI by posting your web page, even if it is a fan site and not a commercial one. As for the images, it might also be a good idea to size them a little smaller too - or at least a little less vertical height. I might also suggest that rather than doing up separate charts for every race, as you did here: File:MaresHurdle123 2014v1.svg, you might want to instead upload single images of owner silks and then use wikipedia markup to do a chart for each rase - that allows us to use the images in articles about, for example, the Coolmore Stud, and to reuse the same images for future years without having to hope you will be here to recreate graphics all the time. I'll show you what I mean with an example here. (and see, e.g. commons) Montanabw^(talk) 17:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Thanks for your suggestions on reusing individual owner images rather than building specific race images. I wasn't aware of the syntax that could be used to assemble composite images. Although very much in favour of the principal of "create once and use many", I think that at the moment it is less effort to load discrete images rather than maintain a library of components. I am happy to load some Owner Colours for use elsewhere when required, but I suspect that only a very small percentage of the tens of thousands of UK owners have individual pages to profit from this.

I have experimented with image sizes to get them to display better in the pages, but it seems that the width of a thumbnail is fixed and so will never align with the "infobox" above it. Regarding the point made by Bcp67 about extra space appearing on the page, I have discovered that this relates to use of either 1) the 4 hyphens (draws line across the page - now deprecated) or 2) the "clear" tag . Removing these is not detrimental to the appearance of the content, but means that the right column of images does not impact the text on the left.

@JockeyColours:, actually there is a lot of room for variation with the markup syntax I used above. You can make the images bigger or smaller and float it right, left or center. If you look at the article rainbow trout for example, there is a series of images of the life cycle of the fish where we made dramatically different-sized images all look the same using this general markup concept with more fussy details. You can also use the "upright" parameter to make images bigger (possible smaller too, haven't tried that). If you want to post a page link here that you'd like me or someone else here to play with in terms of adjusting images, let us know. Montanabw^(talk) 02:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I have now experimented a bit with the "multiple image" syntax and I think I am getting the hang of it. This technique certainly reduces the amount of wasted space around each image and I have been able to resize so that the width matches that of the infobox above. I have redone the Champion Hurdle, Gold Cup pages in this way. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, and please let me know if there is still more that can be done to improve the presentation. (JockeyColours (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC))

Good work around these colours, they have brightened up various article pages, and the addition of the 1-2-3s to race histories is useful too. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox colours

I my be getting forgetful or going a bit mad but... I could have sworn that the background colour for the "horsename" and "major wins" headings on the racehorse/thoroughbred racehorse infobox used to be green. Today it's all gone tan, which I thought was for dirt horses only. Tigerboy1966 21:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, the fewer colors the better - otherwise we will have different boxes for every single discipline...and if a horse is in more than one, a fight over what color to make the dang box. :-P I suspect what may have happened was that when we moved infobox and WP "Thoroughbred horse racing" to just "horse racing" the colors went too... frankly, I don't care if the color is green, tan or chartruse, but I favor keeping one color - and maybe making {{infobox named horse}} match. Just my opinion. Montanabw^(talk) 06:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

MMM at FAC

For those interested, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mucho Macho Man/archive1. I co-nominated the FAC adding @Tigerboy1966: and @Froggerlaura:, who also worked on this article. Montanabw^(talk) 19:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Template tweaks proposed

If anyone wants to comment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_racehorse#New.2Fchanged_parameters.3F please do! Montanabw^(talk) 07:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Notability guideline

FYI

Is there a sports guideline for horse racing? There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Horse_racing regarding horse racing notability that you are invited to join.—Bagumba (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

We have been working on one, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Horse_racing/Notability. I'll go comment though... Montanabw^(talk) 02:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

TFAR nom

Hey all, I put up Oxbow (horse) for TFA on May 17 - Preakness day. I credited { [ping|Tigerboy 1966}}, @Craiglduncan:, @Froggerlaura: too, so pinging y'all. Was in a bit of a quandary which image to use, so posted two possibles, would value folks here (including my co-conspirators) commenting on that as well as the nomination itself. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 01:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Kingman

Due to Kingman's victory today I have created him a page. I moved the original article to this page Kingman (American horse). Not sure if this is Ok let me know if not --Neroyak (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's OK at all. You haven't moved the original article to the new page, you've done a cut-and-paste, which loses the page history for the American racehorse and implies that the article about Gosden's horse was created two years before he was foaled. I'd put a redlink on the Greenham Stakes talk page to Kingmam (horse foaled 2011) as preparation for any new article. Also, the link on the Kingham dab page hasn't been changed. I'd suggest that the activities around the Kingman horses pages are all reverted until we can get a decent consensus for naming the two different pages. Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh, but cut-and-paste moves shouldn't happen. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've undone the edits made to Kingman today, so that article is once again about the 1891 Kentucky Derby winner. I've created a new article in my user space, with the details from the new article about the British horse, User:Bcp67/Kingman. I'm happy for anyone to work on this and move it into article space once it's ready under an appropriate name. Corrected a few mentions of the 1000 Guineas but haven't done anything else with it. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

--Apologies for jumping in but I was very surprised that an article on Kingman didn't exist and I have not edited Wikipedia for years so was unaware of protocols. The Kentucky derby winning Kingman article is a stub and contains no information on his stud career or if he even stood at stud. I believe the Greenham winning Kingman is already a much more famous horse and deserves the page title "Kingman (horse)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neroyak (talk • contribs) 22:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Trust me, you do NOT want to get into a fight over a Kentucky Derby winner versus a horse that has run three races and has yet to win an equivalent race to the Kentucky Derby! If push comes to shove, we can make Kingman (horse) a dab and give BOTH of them parenthetical titles with nation of origin. But only if the UK horse actually wins the 2000 Guineas. Otherwise, the US Kingman stays where he is. Montanabw^(talk) 23:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Neroyak, no need for your apology - they were good faith edits on your part, and welcome back to Wiki. I agree that the modern edition of Kingman is worth an article, his notability is established by pattern race wins at two and three, and in three weeks' time he might be a Classic winner, so I'd be happy enough to have the new article moved into article space as soon as it's ready to go there - once we've all agreed on the name! --Bcp67 (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Montanabw I like the idea for a dab page but believe this horse should have an article now. He is favourite for the 2000 guineas and has a lot of interest surrounding him. The past 3 winners of the race have all had articles before winning the race. --Neroyak (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If someone wants to create Kingman as a dab, then perhaps each article can be move to titles that mirror each other, perhaps for simplicity's sake "(US horse)" and "(UK horse)"? I AM sympathetic to your position, as I'm the lead editor for California Chrome, heh... Montanabw^(talk) 19:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have tweaked the article in Bcp's sandbox and added pedigree. I have also created the redlink Kingman (British horse), which should be adequate. I haven't posted the article as I think Neroyak hould have the honour. If the British Kingman does start winning classics we can then move the KD Derby winner to Kingman (American horse). Tigerboy1966 07:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need a further dab for the two horses, there is already a general dab page for Kingman with the US horse listed on it. The British horse can be added there. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Pedigree is a great addition Tigerboy1996. Thank you but I would have had no problem with you doing the move, can you check I have done it correctly? I have also added Kingman (British horse) to the Kingman Dab Neroyak (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Move looks great to me, thanks User:Neroyak. With both horses on the Kingman dab there doesn't seem any particular reason to me to change the article titles - anyone just typing "Kingman" into the search box will go to the dab page and can pick which one they want from there.--Bcp67 (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Even a Yank such as myself will acknowledge that the 2000 Guineas is worth disambiguating both horses, shuold he win. Montanabw^(talk) 01:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it much matters now if he wins the Guineas or not, we have two articles in place about two different horses, both linked from the dab page. If someone comes to Wikipedia looking to find out about the British horse they will likely search for Kingman and end up on the dab page, leading them onto the horse. Likewise, if you look at the list of race winners, the link from the Greenham Stakes (and any future race wins) would you lead you to the correct place. Not sure there is any real purpose in fiddling about with the article names now, provided they are correctly linked. Surely no need either for a secondary dab for "Kingman (horse)" with the two horses linked from it - we'd then end up with a dab page called "Kingman", with a link leading to a "Kingman (horse)" dab page, with the horse articles leading on from there. Too much! --Bcp67 (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy. No worries. Montanabw^(talk) 03:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If Kingfisher (British horse) wins the Derby, we'll be doing this all over again! --Bcp67 (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I seem to have missed the end of this conversation. I had started moving Kingman (horse) links to Kingman (American horse) with a view to moving the article to that name. You're right that it probably doesn't matter with regard to people trying to find the respective articles, but it is easy to automatically link to Kingman (horse) when we are writing articles. I found a couple linked to this that referred to the British horse. My original plan was to do the same as we did for Dunkirk (horse) and The Bard (horse), so it avoids another disambiguation page. It is stated at the top of the Kingman (horse) article that the article is not about the British horse so I guess people would find the right article anyway though, and I can easy change the links back :). Edwarddutton (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Right sorry to bring this up again but Kingman (British horse) has now won 3 group 1 races (possibly 4 this time tomorrow.) Is he now worthy of the page Kingman (horse) with the Kentucky derby winner moved to another title? Neroyak (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that my understanding of the 2,000 Guineas Stakes is that it is an EnglishTriple Crown race, I'd grant making Kingman a dab with both horses listed by nationality as reasonable. But no way am I going to engage in recentism and say a three year old with a roughly equivalent race record to a US Kentucky Derby winner should displace as WP:PRIMARY. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll stick by my comment from 15 April above and say leave things as they are. Setting up a dab page for the two horses is over dab-ing, and casual readers searching for the British horse will be led there by the existing Kingman dab. --Bcp67 (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:TWODABS. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

More disambiguation

I'm looking to start up an article on the trainer Richard Hannon, who will be one of the leading trainers in Britain this year. Hannon took over the licence from his father, also Richard Hannon, in January. While he was his father's assistant he was commonly referred to as "Richard Hannon junior", but I've noticed that the media are simply calling him Richard Hannon now, which is fair enough. Not sure how to disambiguate the two though - separate articles for Snr (a move) & Jnr, with a dab page? Leave the father where he is and style the son's article Richard Hannon, Jr. etc? Dab them both by year of birth? Any suggestions gratefully received, thanks! --Bcp67 (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB seems kind of worthless though I'm sure there must be a guideline somewhere. My thinking is start with formal legal name, so if the son is "jr., then Jr., if he's "II", then say "II" Middle initials are also good if they are different. For example, George Bush. Montanabw^(talk) 23:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd imagine both their legal name are just Richard Hannon to be honest. Anyway, looks like someone has made a solution to the problem by moving the existing Richard Hannon article to Richard Hannon, Sr. although that itself leads to another problem. Richard Hannon is now a redirect to the moved page, but would be better as a dab page to the two articles, once the one for Richard junior is created - this would need a lot of link fixes though. I think I'll leave it all alone and let others sort it out! --Bcp67 (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd presume the son is Jr. or "II" We have the precedent of folks like Laffit Pincay, Jr. who was more famous than his father, but still "Jr." , so I see no reason to have a WP:PRIMARY dispute over who gets the main article, I say dab it and then name Jr and Sr both. Montanabw^(talk) 06:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it was me that moved Richard Hannon to Richard Hannon, Sr. Sorry, should have sought consensus here first. My thinking was: a.) that's how the media have started referring to him now, b.) it fits the precedent for some of the 18th century jockey/trainer bios I've done (pretty sure I checked general guidelines on the Sr./Jr. thing before doing them, but it's a while ago now!). Agree with both of you that Richard Hannon would be better as a dab page. I will make a start on this, if we can get a consensus on what we call Richard Jr. Peaky76 (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem with not looking for consensus first, we've got enough co-operative spirit to sort it all out between us here. I've started changing some links to Richard Hannon "the elder", to be "Richard Hannon, Sr." in preparation for making Richard Hannon a dab page. I'd be happy enough with Richard Hannon, Sr. and Richard Hannon, Jr., and provided there's a dab readers should be able to find the right one. Although.... Richard Hannon (senior) and Richard Hannon (junior) would make creating links a bit easier as we could do the pipe trick. Hopefully the younger Richard doesn't have a son of his own called Richard who will take over the licence in 30 years time!!! --Bcp67 (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice thing about a dab is that you at least get to the general neighborhod. Montanabw^(talk) 03:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've converted Richard Hannon to a dab page, and set up Richard Hannon, Jr. in his own right. I've got some more refs to use to bulk out that article, but don't have time right now. Fortunately, his son seems to be called Jack, thank goodness, otherwise we would end up with this sort of carry on - John Singleton (jockey)! Peaky76 (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Great work, User:Peaky76, thanks for that. I've fixed a few links and will do some more when I get time. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Steeplechasing

I'm having a go at tidying up the article steeplechase. It's something of a mish-mash and as far as I can tell it's because the term is used differently in different countries (I'm UK). As far as I can make out US and Australian "Steeplechasing" is synonymous with UK and Ireland "National Hunt racing" (without the NH flat). US Steeplechasing then subdivides into "hurdle" and "timber", while UK and Ireland NH racing subdivides into "hurdle" and "steeplechase". So, what we have is an article that our UK and Ireland users think refers to a subdivision of "jumps" racing, while users in the rest of the world think it refers to the whole of "jumps racing". Does that sound right? If so, I am not sure what can be done. My instinct would be to restrict this article to a broad description of steeplechase (within the historic context of racing between steeples etc.) then, for modern usage, point people to separate articles depending on the country. Thoughts? Peaky76 (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Try some Google searching; I would personally vote for Steeplechase being the main article but the lead sentences explaining the two meanings right up front. The National Hunt racing article might be able to get away with being a little shorter if it can cross-ref the other. I hope we can avoid doing something as Balkanized as show hunter, Show hunter (British), field hunter, fox hunting, etc.. I'd say sourcing is the solution. Yes, "steeplechasing" is what we call all races over fences in the USA. "National Hunt" is a relatively new term even for the UK, isn't it? We also have never heard of "jumps racing," but maybe "jump racing" LOL! I'd go with the terminology used by the national federations that govern in each country, and where there is informal use (jump/jumps), go with the style used by, say, the London Times or New York Times. Thoughts all? Montanabw^(talk) 03:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Article merge

I have proposed a merge of starting barrier and starting gate. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Starting_gate. Seeking the greater consensus, and to encourage discussion, I'm a Yank, so if no comment in 7 days, i'm merging it into the US version (grinning, ducking and running...). Montanabw^(talk) 00:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky Derby ping

Hi all - Just a very polite ping to various trusted editors and my talk page stalkers: on Derby Day (Saturday, May 3) can you please help keep an eye on a recent GA that I've worked on, California Chrome? The horse is the favorite for the race, already has a rabid fan base, the "Chromies" (in a good way, mostly) but the article is already getting anon IP edits from people who are making random odd edits. I have meticulously sourced this article and if there are errors, they are in the sources consulted (or at least my interpretation of them) and, while of course any article can be improved, anyone changing material needs different/better sources to correct errors and not just put in random rants (which is what one anon IP just did, phooey). I think everyone around here knows the drill, but... thanks in advance. I'm driving back home that day and will be on the road about 7 hours, I'm hoping I can at least catch the race itself in a cafe or something along the way, I won't likely have internet access during the race itself and other eyes will be much appreciated, thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 06:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Can do. First time I'll have a functioning TV on Derby Day in years :/ Froggerlaura ^ribbit 06:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL! I'm hoping I can find a motel lobby or a sports bar or at least a coffee shop with wifi that is not too far from the interstate somewhere between Spokane and Wallace, which is roughly where I'll probably be about post time... unless I get an early enough start to be close to Missoula... Of course, if I totally miscalculate, there is also this joint along the way if my timing really sucks... heh. (YIKES!) =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 07:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... I'd say run if the charmingly awkward motel owner has an extensive taxidermy bird collection... Froggerlaura ^ribbit 21:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Made it to Missoula by race time, saw the race live (about had a heart attack watching them come down the homestretch!) and was able to revert a few vandals in the process. Then hit the road again. Home safe now, long drive, glad to be here. Thanks for the babysitting job and all the cleanup, everyone! Yay! Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Mop request

Someone, not a regular here, started Lucky Pulpit. Hooray for them, but the article is a stub and needs the standard cleanup. Thanks to anyone who wants to take a mop over there and some polish. Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a free video of him by FranceSire (also Cee's Tizzy) if you would like a screenshot. [1] Froggerlaura ^ribbit 19:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Do it! Yay! Any chance of getting a screenshot of California Chrome's Derby win while you are at it? Montanabw^(talk) 22:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't use the shot of California Chrome from the video because it is non-free footage from NBC and not shot directly from France Sire. I did find this free one [2] in addition to the one I added to the 2014 KD page, but it's mostly of his butt going across the finish line :) Should have much better pics for the Preakness as the Maryland governor's office always takes numerous CC good ones. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 22:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Track surface etc.

Hope I haven't trodden on anyone's toes here but I have moved the original Track surface article to Going (horse racing) (which is also redirected to from Track condition and Track rating). The material in that original article was all about grading of the surface (good, heavy, fast etc.), not about the actual surface (dirt, turf, artificial etc.) I needed an article about the latter so that I could link to it from the main horse racing page, and this move seemed the most appropriate way of doing it. I would ideally like to expand the track surface article with sections on each of the different types (which can then possibly link to main articles on those types). I would also like to include a section on grading of the surface, but at the moment I have just linked to it in the body of the text and via a 'see also' link. I have also proposed a merger from a related synthetic surfaces article (see Talk:Track_surface). I see User:Tigerboy1966 did a lot of the work on that article, so would especially appreciate his thoughts... Peaky76 (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, must admit to slight UK bias when moving article to Going (horse racing) but also thought it was probably the more historic term. Peaky76 (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added "yielding" as a term used in Ireland for good to soft ground. A lot of Brits suspect that this is actually an Irish euphemism for anything short of hock-deep bottomless sludge. Tigerboy1966 18:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm good with the creation of an article on track surfaces; it's a good topic. I'm wondering if we can use "track condition" though, I commented more at the article talk page. I'd also be OK with track rating (they have similar # of google hits. Going is kind of vague and confusing and I hate a dab if we don't need need one. Not a huge deal to me, Just FWIW. Montanabw^(talk) 06:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Horse race infoboxes

Hi all, note Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 7. We have four horse race infobox templates, Andy Mabbett @Pigsonthewing: is suggesting we merge them all into one. I personally think this is a great idea, and I recommended using {{Infobox horse race}} as the "master." Anyone have other suggestions or thoughts ought to, er, um, gallop over there and do so. Might be a minor US/UK English thing, which is not a huge big deal to me, but might be to someone else. Montanabw^(talk) 16:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. In fact the proposal is to merge two into each other; and separately another two into each other, leaving a total of two boxes instead of four. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My take is that all four (horse race, horseraces, turf horse race and dirt horse race) ALL be merged into one. But don't merge the racecourse one into the motorsports one, there are too many horse race tracks that link to it, and the conditions are radically different than for motorsport racing, IMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 21:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Please discuss the proposal on the TFD page: the discussions are Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 7#Template:Infobox Horseraces and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 7#Template:Infobox horse race. This is because the closing admin will not take into account any comments left on WikiProject talk pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I did, but I wanted to post here that the discussion is open and exists, and what my position there happens to be, because it only pops up if you happen to be editing one of the articles so affected. And please don't say condescending things like "This is because the closing admin will not take into account any comments left on WikiProject talk pages." I've been editing for eight years, I do know a few of the basics. There is no need to be snarky about good faith efforts. Montanabw^(talk) 23:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Another all hands on deck

Hey all, another mission should you choose to accept it: can you watchlist Oxbow (horse), which will be TFA on 2014 Preakness Stakes day (May 17, evening of the 16th in the USA), and I anticipate possible vandal problems there because the horse's jockey and trainer are both being targeted by PETA for some unfortunate "campfire talk" caught on tape last year. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 22:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ping project members

You folks in the UK may be particularly interested in this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Aye or, um, neigh? and the subsections under it on the Epsom Derby and Breeders' Cup. Montanabw^(talk) 16:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

dropped by and corrected an error. Tigerboy1966 08:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The more, the merrier. People don't get it about horse racing, just because they aren't interested in it doesn't mean it is a niche sport! But I'm preaching to the choir. Montanabw^(talk) 18:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 Epsom Derby

I've created a fairly bare article for the upcoming race, feel free to edit it if you like. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

already added the Dante result. Just hope they let Night of Thunder and Toast of New York have a go. There's a feeling that this is turning into a one horse race, but it needn't be. Tigerboy1966 19:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if you need babysitting eyes on any of these, I owe y'all for helping with 'Chrome. If he wins tomorrow, his article is going to go into batshit crazy vandal land, saw a nutcase on FB claiming all sorts of tinfoil helmet stuff about a California conspiracy... sheesh. Montanabw^(talk) 18:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Great to see Oxbow on the front page today! --Bcp67 (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Congrats to all involved with Oxbow. Still not sure what colour he is! Lockinge today should be fascinating: Verrazano vs Olympic Glory. Tigerboy1966 13:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all, Oxbow got off relatively unscathed. Thanks for the eyes on the California Chrome article, which just got 35K hits today and the day isn't over in the US yet...Our biggest problem this time was a not-quite-newbie who should have known better thinking she could go in and try to rewrite the whole article right in the middle of the vandal hit period. Wanted to scream and strangle her. Took me about an hour to get it all straightened out. Grrr! Montanabw^(talk) 03:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Pinging UK/Ireland members

Your comments/input would be useful here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Beasley. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

European race results

I'm looking for some assistance please. I won't be around after the weekend for a week or so - would the project members be able to keep the European race results up to date during the week so I haven't got a backlog to come back to? I can sort the references from the RP and any redlinks on talk pages, but if the results could be kept up to date I'll be grateful, thanks. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you link to the articles you are concerned about here? Maybe a couple good news sources for us Yanks to use to plug in results? I know I will be calling upon you all on June 7 for the Belmont Stakes because with California Chrome up for a possible triple crown, that article will be vandal central, so I definitely want to help anyone else in turn if I can! Montanabw ^(talk) 21:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a page where I keep upcoming races - User:Bcp67/RacesToDo although this only goes up to Thursday - can't get any cards beyond that. Prime source for results is Racing Post, or Sporting Life. Thanks again --Bcp67 (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Anything familiar here?

Just wondering, seems I've seen this editor before, but it's a brand new account: ?. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

the tone of the edit summaries is somewhat familiar, as is the double H (sigh). Tigerboy1966 12:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thought so. As long as behavior is OK, I won't open an SPI, but figured it was a possibility. Ping me if there's trouble. Montanabw ^(talk) 16:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The Grey Gatsby

Final had some time to write the article. Hope it's ok. I've found the owner colours and added them to the info box but think they are a bit big can some who knows how to shrink them down a bit do so and see if it looks any better?--Neroyak (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No good with images myself, but I've just given the article generally a quick copyedit without altering the sense of what you've written. --Bcp67 (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've shrunk down the image a bit, which I think looks about the right size now, see what you think.Edwarddutton (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Epsom/Belmont day!

Just saying! Put on your vandal hats and get ready to rock and roll! Montanabw ^(talk) 16:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century

This article may be deleted because of copyright issues. Do any project members have experience in this area? If so, please take a look. Tigerboy1966 06:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

They are right about duplicating the list in its entirety in the article being copy vio (single list from copy-righted publication). The lead paragraphs are fine and the article only needs to address the top positions as it does now. I wouldn't mind if the article was deleted as I don't think it's really notable and it would get rid of the "Secretariat was the bestest horse ever" vandalism we have with it now. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 17:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to have kept it, but if it's a copyvio, that's that. I think a lot of us have felt that it's more trouble than it's worth. Tigerboy1966 17:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you can't copyright data but you can copyright presentation. Whether the presentation is the exact numbering of the list or if it's the way it was formatted in the book is another question that I couldn't really answer well. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I would agree, but since the purpose of the book is to present the data according to a ranking system specifically developed by Blood-Horse and only used in that publication, I would have to say that the specific rank given in the text is probably copyrightable in a list format. It would be a lot different if say, The Daily Racing Form and Eclipse Awards had developed and published lists with similar rankings. I'm not sure an article dedicated to the rankings as a whole is necessary because "X was ranked Y in Blood-Horse Magazine's List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century" would suffice just as well as a byline in the horse articles. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's take the discussion over there: Talk:Blood-Horse_magazine_List_of_the_Top_100_U.S._Racehorses_of_the_20th_Century#Copyright_violation. That said, I think the rest of the article is salvageable even if the list itself gets deleted, and it looks like the data question itself is going to get discussed, which will be interesting to know for future reference anyway. Does anyone know if there are similar articles on WP, such as "greatest baseball players of all time" or something? Montanabw ^(talk) 05:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Horse Racing At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Question about Ruffian's page

What source was used to say that Ruffian was "officially black"? I only ask because I've never seen any official source that listed her as anything other than dark bay/brown. (And I hope I'm asking this in the right place.) Weegeek

You are right. Some editors just like to describe her as black. It's been reverted many times. If she was called black in contemporary sources it would have been in a colloquial rather than a technical sense. Other officially brown racehorses that have been casually referred to as black include Chief Singer and Sprinter Sacre. Tigerboy1966 06:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Dead issue, it doesn't say that now. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Horse racing to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 19:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Chrome

Nominated Chrome for FAC today, FYI: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California Chrome/archive1. Grab your popcorn and watch the show. Knowledgeable horse people encouraged to watchlist and comment as they see fit, particularly if there is a need to explain horse stuff. I also welcome any of you as a reviewer if you haven't been one of the significant contributors already! Montanabw ^(talk) 22:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Chrome two: In the FAC, the question of possibly spinning off the owner info into its own article was raised. There's enough material, but as first time breeders, however unique, are they "Notable' enough for an article titled something line "DAP Racing?" I'm not sure, but thought I'd post here. We generally don't have owner articles unless they are big farms or people who are notable for other reasons beyond owning a winning race horse. I guess I'm neutral on the idea, but I don't want to deal with another effing "BIO1E" drama at that board. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

DAP Racing now live. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hollywood Dun It

Hi WikiProject, I happened upon Hollywood Dun It while working on another editing project. There was some content on the page under Pedigree that looked like an abandoned attempt to build a family tree. I converted the content as best as I could using Template:Pedigree, but I can't figure out how to suppress the blank fields from displaying, so I wonder if I did more harm than good. Thought I'd drop by to mention it in case someone cared to flesh out the tree, or if there's a simple fix I'm not aware of. I know nothing of the world of horseracing. :) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no simple fix: {{pedigree}} always draws columns for four generations. As you may have observed, if you specify e.g. |mmmm= and leave it blank, you get a blank cell; but if you omit |mmmm= entirely, it shows {{{mmmm}}} in that position. It's the same for all the parameters. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Though not the perfect source because it sometimes has errors, but you can usually get the rest of the pedigree to fill in at albreedpedigree.com. See http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/hollywood+dun+it Montanabw ^(talk) 21:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ballybrit

Horseracing appeals to me as much as Commonwealth Netball, but it seems strange that there's no article about Ballybrit Racecourse. Will create a stub. that is all Bogger (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agree that there should be an article - hosts one of the great racing festivals. There is an existing article for Galway Races which concentrates mostly on the festival and it might be best to merge the new article into that. The racecourse seems to use "Galway Races" as its official name, although we usually have "XXXXX Racecourse" as the standard article title for British & Irish racecourses. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Newbie needs help

Those better than I at creating new articles may want to lend this person a hand: Moonviper. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Epsom classics page moves

The pages for Epsom Derby and Epsom Oaks have been moved without discussion today. Consensus in August 2010 was for the Derby page to stay as Epsom Derby - discussion might need revisiting. I won't revert the moves, pending discussion, but it is an option. Any comments at the respective article talk pages, please. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I just moved both back. the person moving them has the burden. Now you can discuss if they come back and whine about it. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion

I prod tagged some articles today, all started by the same person a few years ago and all, IMHO, non-notable. I have no particular axe to grind here, so am posting in case I got over eager with the prod tag: they are Bambera (horse), Nereid (horse), Mildly Offensive (horse), and Motega. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Fun UK article

There's an informal article improvement drive on for Florence Nagle. See more comments at talk page and also here. I'm trotting over to lend a hand, this gal sounds like a great subject! Montanabw ^(talk) 22:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Two fun articles...

...in need of eyes of those with access to old statistics at their fingertips! @Froggerlaura:, @Tigerboy1966:: Florence Nagle and Norah Wilmot; two very cool people! Montanabw ^(talk) 20:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Horse racing articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh god, NOT video games too! :-P

Request move for Yellowglen Stakes to Linlithgow Stakes

I've made a request to move the name of the article (Yellowglen Stakes) to the registered race name (Linlithgow Stakes) of the race. Explanation is give in the Talk:Yellowglen Stakes. Can some admin look into moving this? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Brudder Andrusha: You only opened the RM today; they normally run for seven days. If after that period a neutral editor with the appropriate user right hasn't come along, closed the discussion and taken appropriate action, that's the time to call in the admins. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. We'll wait 7 days. Unfortunately the race is run this coming weekend but the result will the be correct after the running. Thanks. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for those involved with this. The result was a move on Nov. 5. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Day of Week column

I propose to add a Day of Week column to List_of_British_flat_horse_races and other "List of races" pages.

The festivals have well-defined daily structures, but the smaller meetings do too (Haldon Gold Cup on Tuesday, Carlisle Bell on Wednesday) and these often reflect the character and tradition of the racing.

In some instances, the DOW will need to be a Day of Year e.g. the King George on Boxing Day, Fairlawne on New Year's Day

Can anyone suggest UK/Ireland/France races which don't have an implicit DOW or DOY?

I feel this extra column will fit well into the existing structure, and also provide an extra dimension making the pages more informative and interesting.

(JockeyColours (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC))

I don't support this addition to be honest. It doesn't add anything informative or interesting for me, and races do move around from one day to another at times - especially the midweek ones at the festivals. The Peterborough Chase also springs to mind, run midweek traditionally, then switched to a Saturday, and back to a midweek again. Where a race like the King George or Irish National, say, is associated with a specific DOY, that's noted in the article anyway. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree; over here, most major races in the USA that "always" fall on a particular day usually say so in the article, and ones like the Breeders' Cup sometimes shift around a bit (admitttedly, Friday to Saturday only, as a rule, but still). Montanabw ^(talk) 01:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutral. I can't see any problem with the proposal, as long as JC keeps things up to date (and JC is pretty good at that). For instance, I notice that the 1000 Guineas has been run on every day of the week except Monday and Saturday in the last seventy years. And CIGARS ALL ROUND as I have just completed my one thousandth article and am now King of the World! (that's irony btw) Tigerboy1966 18:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Where's your barnstar? (And how many of these were DYK? Montanabw ^(talk) 05:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A fabulous effort, you've done more to increase the quality and quantity of UK horse racing articles than anyone else - to borrow a term from another of my sporting interests, "chapeau"! And nice to see that the 1,000th was one of my favourite 1980s fillies. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Calling the Brits and Irishmen (and the Aussies too)

I have just hit a motherlode of free-licensed images on Flickr of races in the UK, Ireland and Australia (over a dozen albums, including some labeled "2013 Melbourne Cup", "2,000 Guineas", and "Cheltenhaam Festival 2014") I have figured out the flickr2commons tool and within the next hour or so of this post, I will probably have a couple hundred images uploaded to Commons, some of which will be of use to those of you across the Atlantic and Pacific ponds. The categories may be wonky due to the flickr import, but you should be able to thumbnail them via my contribs list at Commons and probably in category "thoroughbred". Saw a photo or two of Australia (horse) in there too. Also have some from Tokyo and Kyoto, but may not upload those... @Tigerboy1966: and all others! Montanabw ^(talk) 04:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move for Welsh National

The Welsh National has reverted to its traditional name of Welsh Grand National, as did the Scottish equivalent a few years ago. Not sure why the races were re-titled back in the 1970s but think it might have had something to with Aintree holding some sort of copyright to "Grand National" in the UK. Anyway, I've put up an RM at Talk:Welsh National if anyone would like to add their thoughts. Thanks. --Bcp67 (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hollywood Futurity

I'm not a great expert on US races, but it looks like the Hollywood Futurity needs a move and some re-writing to take account of its switch to Los Alamitos Futurity. Does this need a requested move or is it straightforward enough for a simple move - any thoughts? --Bcp67 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's the identical race, transplanted since the closure of Hollywood Park, I'd say just move it and edit the lead to fix the name. I think it's straightforward. Ping us here if you need helpers in any way. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you should go through all the race graded race that were at Hollywood Park and with a fine tooth comb. Many of the races have been renamed so as to lose the graded status. This is a bit of a long term project.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably, but it ain't-a-gonna be me. That said, most of the biggest races went over to Del Mar or Los Alamitos, maybe a couple to Santa Anita. The renaming didn't necessarily lose their status if they kept the purse money. All three tracks got extra days of racing due to the shutdown of Hollywood Park. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the Hollywood Futurity today to the new title, but I'd appreciate some US eyes to check that the details look OK - I'm rather more at home on the rainy and muddy jump tracks of the UK than the sunshine of California. For which reason, I won't be pursuing changing any of the other race moves from Hollywood Park, not for the moment anyway. Looked a straightforward move and the ref cited from the Bloodhorse.com confirmed that this is a continuation of the original race. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Groovy and thanks! I'd say just ping me or anyone on this page if you see more races that need to be moved. I don't have all the races watchlisted (I only have about 4000 articles on my watchlist as it is...) so I will be most appreciative of anything others bring to my attention. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)