Talk:Authentic (show jumping horse)

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

Pedigree[edit]

Is such an extensive pedigree really needed? This is an actual question; I know next to nothing about equestrian breeding, so if there's any reason for it please inform me. I'm only saying from a layman's perspective it seems really unnecessary. Angrysockhop (and a happy new year) 05:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's quite common, horse pedigrees on registration papers often go back 4 to 6 generations at a minimum, I have a set of papers from a warmblood association that go back 8. Montanabw(talk) 04:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a famous horse, yes I think it is needed. Check out Go Man Go's article, it goes back even farther. Hey, thanks for the comment. I just made this article not long ago and I'm glad some people are seeing it!!! Where did you find it? Well, if you have anymore suggestions please leave them! I welcome criticism along with praise!! lol!! Thanks!! ☆dream on☆dance on☆ 02:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment[edit]

Thanks for explaining- as I said my knowledge of equestrian breeding is limited. Another concern though, again from the perspective of a layman, is the last sentence (Of particular note...) in the section on his competitive career. Is finishing five seconds short of the allowed time particularly good? Some context as to why this jump-off is unusually notable would be helpful. Also, I added the respective Olympic medal categories; I'm not sure what the accepted practice is regarding this but it seemed reasonable. If doing so seems inappropriate feel free to remove them, or ask me either here or on my talk page and I'll do so myself. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 06:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the categories unless there is overkill, which this wasn't. Occasionally we get people who argue that the horse didn't win the medal, the person did. (My opinion is that it's the pair as a team, personally). It's tricky with these articles, we don't want to duplicate the material in Show jumping and have to explain the nuances of the sport in every article in Category:Show jumping horses] (LOL), but you point is well taken. Basically, jump offs are timed over a higher but shortened course, and five seconds is usually quite significant over a course that has a time allowed of only a couple of minutes. I can't find a source that has the time allowed for that particular course, however, so hard to say if it was spectacular or just really good. Montanabw(talk) 06:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, Montana answered your question pretty well. I just want to add that if you dont know what a jumpoff is, it basically means that if in your first round your "clean" (you dont knock down any rails), then they do a jumpoff to see who can do it in the fastest time. So, depending on how fast the alloted jumpoff time was (I'm not sure, Montana added that part), that could be AMAZING or simply good. So, yah, I guess I wasted my time saying that, but I guess I just wanted to add the part about what a jumpoff is in case you didnt know.
Haha, sometimes trick "new" message thing tricks me too!! So dont feel bad.....thats worse for me, because I'm on my own talk page, how could I have messages!!!! ☆dream on☆dance on☆ 16:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing, thanks for adding the categories!! All edits are welcome!! (Except vandalism...DUH) lol! ☆dream on☆dance on☆ 16:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The "allowed time" is the time in which a competitor incurs no time penalties, and at the Grand Prix level (like the Olympics) is set for all rounds on the course. The jumpoff adds to this the situation where both the fences are raised (usually) the course is sometimes shortened, and the fastest time wins, if all jumping faults (fences knocked down) are equal between two or more competitors. (The use of time saves having a zillion jump offs) Usually jumpers need need a pretty good round with no major errors and to be pushing it a bit on speed to even make the time allowed, so coming in significantly under usually reflects either a very good round, or a rider who took a lot of risks to shave time on a round (cutting corners tight, etc.), either way, you need a good horse that is behaving him/herself to pull it off. I looked back at the article and the allotted time looks like it was 40 seconds and Authentic did it in just over 25, so I personally find that pretty impressive. However, because every single Grand Prix competition jumping course is different, it's hard to do statistics like they can with horse racing, so we can't really say he set a record or anything because there's no common standard. Montanabw(talk) 19:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, that's real good!! ☆dream on☆dance on☆ 00:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I DON'T think anyone checks this page anymore, but...[edit]

I think the first paragraph needs some citation. There's none! --TaylorLanebore me 18:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taylor, we have it watchlisted, so no prob. As a general rule, the first paragraph is the WP:LEAD that ought to be a summary of the rest of the article, and as long as everything in it is cited in the body of the article, it looks clunky to have cites in the lead and thus they are avoided -- the exception is if material in the lead is not mentioned or cited elsewhere -- does that make sense? Here, there IS some material not cited, so you could either cite it or expand the article even more -- whatever you want! Montanabw(talk) 22:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 September 2020[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: moved to "Authentic (show jumping horse)". Yes, I'm aware this is a supervote, but there appears to be consensus for a move of some sort, but not to the suggested disambiguator. Moving to "foaled YEAR" would be a novelty without precedence whereas the disambiguator "show jumping horse" is consistent with the only other ambiguous article of this type I could find, Cedric (show jumping horse). DrKay (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic (horse) → Authentic (show jumper) – Authentic (racehorse) just won the Kentucky Derby. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. More specific disambiguation is needed. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed, it's too much of a stretch to expect everyone to know immediately that a show jumper is a horse. Agree with more disambiguation needed, and suggest foaling year. Authentic (horse, foaled 1995), cf Authentic (racehorse) which can move to Authentic (racehorse, foaled 2017) or Authentic (horse, foaled 2017). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The problem with the proposed disambiguator is that "show jumper" usually refers to a rider rather than a horse. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and redirect Authentic (horse) to DAB.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Cavalryman (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose for two reasons. First off, “show jumper” doesn’t indicate he is a horse. Second, while the Kentucky Derby is significant, this Authentic is just as important in the world of American equestrian sport (part of two gold medal-winning Olympic teams, which is HUGE for the USA because we don’t really dominate the sport). Also, we don’t want to fall into the trap of recentism—this Authentic has been a “big deal” for some time, just not recently, as he was retired from competing a decade ago. A simple hatnote can clarify between the two articles and no need to complicate things. Though distinguishing between the two horses by foaling date is an interesting idea, it’s actually not all that useful and makes for complicated titles. Montanabw(talk) 06:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe the name I proposed isn't perfect, but I think we need some improved disambiguation, because Authentic (horse) is a name that applies well to both horses, and the Kentucky Derby is a very big deal. Notice that the number of page views for this article jumped up from nearly zero to 700 per day on the day of the race, and the number of views for Authentic (racehorse) is now much higher than for this horse. A lot of readers are probably landing on this page and getting rather WP:ASTONISHed. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, something has to be added. Simple hatnotes are less desirable because they are clutter in the prime real estate of the article, and do not appear on all devices, and are a post-error fix rescuing the reader who did not want that page. Distinguishing between the two horses by foaling date is an interesting idea thanks, I don't see it being done for any other horse, although it is the norm for many humans, and for horses more than humans they are recognized by they age, they are frequently introduced by name and age. If not foaling year, then what? (I thought that horse names were supposed to be both unique and memorable, what happened here?) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Names are unique within a breed registry, at least for a generation or so (and some, forever), but different breeds or different nations can easily duplicated.as you can see here Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If folks are landing still on this page I'm amazed that a decision has been made of the disambiguation and clarity of the two horses. My opposition was about the clarity of whats in the parenthesis of the title not that something needs to be done.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to what @SmokeyJoe: queried, racehorses do have the same name and need to distinguished for breeding purposes. However the method used in example by Pedigree Online Thoroughbred Database is appending a number to the end of the name. For example the name Memories has 17 entries in the DB. I don't think this is appropriate for what we have here.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The disambiguation between the horses of the same name should something similar to what is used in other name equivalents. For instance footballers of the same name, year of birth is used as the distinct qualifier. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Putting mysef in the place of a reader coming here to find information about, e.g., the Kentucky Derby winner, if they type "Authentic" into the search box they will get to the dab page where they can pick the right one. If they go to Authentic (horse), the hatnote leads them to the racehorse. So I don't see any great need to move the current article. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a move somewhere given that the other has 21,500 compared to only 2,550 for this one[[1]]. No opinion on where to move to but it should be moved as partial disambiguation that clearly doesn't qualify for a PDAB exception. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but see Englebert Humperdinck the recent one is far more famous, but the original is primary... heh. Montanabw(talk) 03:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • We rarely partly disambiguate even though we have now has consensus to do so in limited cases, the consensus is that the standards are tougher than base names and since the other gets more views this is right out of question. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • FYI, Englebert Humperdinck is a redirect to a dab page (since at least March 2019). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI could live with Authentic (horse, foaled xxxx) construction, clarifying at the dab page what each accomplished otherwise we could get into a real mess like whether we define the jumping Authentic as an Olympic competitor (true), a show jumper (true) or as a Dutch Warmblood (also true). Similarly, “racehorse” is generally not an ideal dab, as there could be a Quarter Horse racehorse, or a Standardbred racehorse... you get the idea. Montanabw(talk) 03:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Authentic_(show_jumping_horse)&oldid=1199206636"