Category talk:Racehorses

Racehorse categories

User:Galopin has recently been creating two new Racehorse categories (bred and trained) for each country. One of these categories, Category:Racehorses bred in the United States, was the subject of a deletion discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_22

Category:Racehorses bred in the United States

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 18:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:American racehorses. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure as there might be a distinction between the two descriptions. Anyone into horseracing here? David Kernow 01:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- where the horse was "bred" isn't notable, that just means the horse had sex. Heck, where the horse was born isn't notable either. Where the horse was trained and raced is notable, only when the horse itself is notable. --William Allen Simpson 03:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge CalJW 07:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

I am sure there are many horse racing contributors who may be unaware of this discussion, and would have a view about what categories are relevant for racehorses. I would appreciate your comments. - Cuddy Wifter 05:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created two categories (bred and trained) on the basis of an argument in a Category talk:British racehorses. There was no rebuttal for one month about Mr.Zafonic's idea. Another reason was to have decided to create it to a similar category by Japanese Wikiproject horseracing at around the same time. --Galopin (Sorry, I use Engrish.) 15:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing. --Galopin 16:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the title "American racehorses" is that it attaches a nationality to racehorses without specifying whether it is by breeding or training. There are several European trained horses in the list which seem completely out of place (Lammtarra, Sadler's Wells, Peintre Celebre etc.) - to describe them as "American racehorses" on the basis of where they were bred is misleading, and the categories "Racehorses bred in the United States" and "Racehorses trained in the United States" solve this. - Zafonic 10:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Mr. Zafonic's idea. --Galopin 06:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't aware of this discussion when I created addional categories (Italian racehorses, Canadian racehorses, French racehorses, United Kingdom racehorses). I think the "bred in U.S." etc is a good idea (we show where humans are born even if they become a citizen elsewhere) but then the Category:French racehorses and others I created seems to me to make "Trained in France" and the like redundant. -- Handicapper 15:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative solution to this would be to add a suffix to each racehorse's name to indicate the country in which they were foaled - for example "Sadler's Wells (USA)", "Dubai Millennium (GB)", "Montjeu (IRE)" - a common practice in the listing of racehorses. There would then only be the need for a category indicating the country in which the horses were trained. - Zafonic 18:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not go with the commonly accepted worldwide practice when listing horses as suggested by Zafonic. (GB) (AUS) (US) (FR) (CAN) etc. I think both the breeding and training of a horse are quite important however the categorisation here can become redundant. If a US bred horse that is owned by Irish intrests and races its whole life in England British or US (or even Irish)?? Does it matter? By using Dubai Millennium (GB) the horse is then forever linked to the British breeding industry, you could have a category for that, however i would not think that this should come at the exception of this horse appearing in other categories. eg - where the category of Australian racehorses was deleted from Tulloch and categorised as Australian Trained Racehorses & New Zealand Bred racehorses. dark horse 02:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- further to that, i think that there should be a portal for horseracing (specifically thoroughbred horse racing) from there it can be further defined with reference to breeding, racing by countries etc. Some articles are very american specific, others british and many australian. The whole horseracing theme could be much better categorised, linked and therefore navigated.

dark horse 05:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be two categories (place bred and place trained). I don't think this format will be redundant (although we should get rid of "Australian racehorses" and similar categories for being too vague). I think there will be users who will want to use both categories for searching, specifically if they are interested in the breeding industry of a particular country, and using the suffix alone does not provide them with a way to navigate by "place bred". Additionally, I wonder if there will be any users who will be confused by the meaning of the suffix without some explanation ( I know we can't dumb it down for everyone, just bringing up a point). Eventer