Category talk:Individual horses

Untitled

No 'Damascus'? Wood Memorial, Preakness, Belmont, Travers and Woodward winner 1967. Horse of the year 1967. One of only 3 horses to ever beat Dr Fager who still holds the record on dirt for 1 mile. Would have been a triple crown winner if not for the loss in Kentucky to Proud Clarion on a drizzly dismal day so foggy no one actually saw the whole race and knows why he lost. Damascus broke down during his 4 year old campaign in the 2 mile Jockey Club Gold Cup and was retired to stud. I would like to know how long he lived and famous offspring. He was my childhood hero when there were still great horses to admire! Thanks.

No Genuine Risk?

Both of these horse are now here on wiki. :Ki Longfellow 18:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV

Famous according to whom? This category is POV and undefinable. Cacophony 06:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate categories

In a discussion at WikiProject Thoroughbred racing it has been suggested that this category is in need of a clean-up, with most horse articles categorised as Famous horses AND also categorised in sub-categories. User:Montanabw at Talk:List of historical horses has also said ..."the famous horses categories also are in desperate need of work. There are subcategories within subcategories, horses listed as famous horses, then again as famous racehorses, etc. It needs some major cleanup. Ideally, the "famous horses" category would have very few actual articles linked, but rather be a list of the subcategories, which need to be redone..."

I have therefore tagged this page with '''{{catdiffuse}}''' and suggest that all articles which have duplicate categories (ie. Famous horses AND a sub-category) have the Famous horses category deleted in accord with Categorization general guidelines and Categorization and subcategories guidelines. When all duplicate categories have been removed, we should be able to see if a few more sub-categories are required. - Cuddy Wifter 04:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created two new subcategories, one for Rodeo horses and one for Cutting horses. Let's see where we are after I get the Quarter horses that those will apply to put into their categories.Ealdgyth | Talk 04:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is and what isn't famous is subjective and thus has no place in an encyclopedia. See WP:NPOV – John 22:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the recent Categories for discussion no consensus decision on Category:Famous animals and subcats. - Cuddy Wifter 02:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just jumped in there after I noticed a changed article – I wasn't aware of that. AFAIC, for an encyclopedia, WP:OC#Subjective_inclusion_criterion is more important than WP:Ignore All Rules. If the category had some quantifiable inclusion criteria as many of the sub categories do, I'd support it – John 08:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is "famous" enough to have a wikipedia article that doesn't get deleted (see WP:Notability), then it should be placed somewhere, and I like the idea that "famous horses" should be basically a list of the subcategories, though some subcats may need to be cross-linked (for example, famous racehorses may need to be cross linked to both sports and horses). I will note that too many subcategories within other subcategories can make an article almost impossible to find. For example. "Famous cutting horses" shouldn't be a subcategory of "famous quarter horses" (especially considering that not all famous cow horses are quarter horses), they should be separate. JMO, I'm not real good at cateory formatting stuff. Montanabw 18:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I set up the cutting/reining/quarter racehorse/rodeo/quarter show horses/quarter horse sires/quarter horse broodmares was such that none of them 'nest' within each other. They are all subcats of 'famous horses', which would be correct, I think, from my reading of categorization rules. I was trying to think ahead on the cats so that when people put up horses like Gunner (a reining horse who's a paint) they don't get miscategorized. Did I mess it up and get the cutting/reining/rodeo horses nested inside something besides Famous Horses? By the way, CuddyWifter's been doing really great work pruning down the duplicates, great work! Ealdgyth | Talk 19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got it. But I also think that some of the categories may be a bit overdone (for example, if there are only two articles in a category). However, after moving about 20 or 30 Thoroughbred race horse articles into the proper category, I tired of it. The other problem is if a horse rightly does belong in more than one category, is is REALLY a sin for there to be multiple listings? (grin). I don't know... Montanabw 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the rodeo and reining categories are a bit sparse. I'm hoping that someone will add a few barrel racing horses to the rodeo links, sparing me the bother. I fully expect Hollywood Dunit to be nominated next year for the AQHA Hall of Fame and to make it, so that's another reiner. And reining is sorta headed towards the Olympics, at least that's my understanding. Certainly reining is more popular overseas than cutting, and it's VERY much cheaper to do. I know, I've got an Arabian in cowhorse training, and cow events are just about as expensive as racing! Ouch! Ealdgyth | Talk 22:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of worry about accumulating huge laundry lists of living horses. Look at how the TB race horse section is practically out of control! Also raises the risk of running afoul of the wiki gods' prohibition on commercial advertising, becomes a very fine line with middle tier horses, trainers, etc. But as for the rest, my three year old Arab that I dug off a cattle ranch when she was a yearling likes to push my other filly around like a cow in a working cowhorse class. She also nickers to the neighbor's cattle like they are her babies and specializes in chasing cats out of the pasture, changing direction every time they do. Her mama chased cows for 15 years. She probably has the aptitude, but the cost of bringing along a "cowy" horse, even up here where the cows still outnumber people, absolutely terrifies me! =:-O Montanabw 02:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no plans to add any more quarter horses to the encyclopedia. I figure that if they are in the AQHA Hall of Fame, it's pretty easy to prove notability. After all, the AQHA has registered over 3.5 million horses, so the ones that survive the nomination process to be in the Hall of Fame are pretty select. And they only take dead horses, which helps with the worries about commercial advertising. The AQHA is a lot pickier on the horses than they are on the people in their Hall of Fame, that's for sure! I have a few paints and a few arabians that on my user page that I think should probably be in, and that's pretty much my plans on horses. I could see Nazeer also, I guess. And Skrownek (dang it, I can never spell his name!) is already in ... Ealdgyth | Talk 03:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like your list (mostly-grin). Yeah, I wrote some of the Skowronek article and started Mesaoud. Note I put a few of them in red links in the articles too. See Crabbet Arabian Stud. I am, however, deliberately leaving out almost all names of famous Arabian horses from the main article because it will clog it up and once you start, oh.my.gawd. the edit wars it spawns (aside from reverting the endless "my pony susie is the best Arabian" stuff, it also took quite a while for even the foundation breeding in the Quarter horses article to settle down and it's still in flux, and the Morgan people are STILL fighting about the history of Justin Morgan!) -- that's what the categories are for, after all! Montanabw 05:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]