Talk:Blood-Horse magazine Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century

message: The article exists "as is" regardless if you disagree! The "100" rankings reflects what was determined by the sportswriters and historians at the time. As a published resource there is no room for debate under this specific topic (Blood-Horse Magazine's List) to adjust a name or position here and there. Can you disagree? Sure, but keep it to yourself as this isn't a pub to voice opinion.
It gets silly for all the Secretariat fans to waltz in and think it is of any value (or even humor) to slip in a change from 2nd to 1st. At the end of the day any changes made is considered vandalism and you may be subject to censure or banned from wikipedia. --Kellsboro Jack (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't adjust the list

message: I am returning content possibly posted by the IP user who is editing the list with the hopes of starting a discussion. imars (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Previously blanked content

message: The link to the text of the book makes it clear that the title of the book did not include the words U.S. It was "The Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century." 
The fact that non U.S. horses were almost completely ignored is therefore more of a credibility problem than the current page title would suggest. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title? 

message: I understand this article is promoting a particular magazine and book published by the magazine, but some people may get the mistaken impression this listing is agreed on by horse-racing historians.  The article includes some balance by including the quote by Nack and that's good.  The wikipedia article on Secretariat includes this statement: "ESPN listed him 35th of the 100 greatest athletes of the 20th century, the highest of three non-humans on the list (the other two were also racehorses: Man o' War at 84th and Citation at 97th )."  Most readers will readily see that ESPN regards Secretariat as the best horse of the 20th century, by a large margin.  What do you think? RonCram (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that if ESPN thinks that the three best horses of the century were all trained in the USA we needn't pay too much attention to them or their list. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Perhaps a little balance?

message: The list was titled "Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century", without the "US" qualification. Of course the real title makes the list look ridiculous and parochial (Davona Dale was a better horse than Brigadier Gerard, apparently), but I don't think we should be protecting the reputation of a magazine.  Tigerboy1966  20:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually part of a wider problem on wp. A lot of editors, editing in good faith, have a habit of writing about "horses racing" and "racehorses" when then mean something like "(North) American horse racing" and "racehorses trained in the United States". It's an understandable error (and I bet you could find plenty of similar examples in my contributions on British horse racing) but it's not a tendency which should be encouraged.  Tigerboy1966  07:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I hated doing this, as its so obviously the core of the article, but we cannot have the complete list as compiled by a subjective set of criteria, as that list is itself protected by copyright. we can mention the #1 horse, and of course mention this rating in the articles on the horses, but cannot reproduce the whole list. i learned this the hard way from an article i wrote of a "100 best" which had to hve the list removed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please identify the parts of the article which breach specific guidelines. Tigerboy1966  18:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the policy is about copying such a list, but I suppose it would be a good idea to find out – so I have added the appropriate template to the article and listed the page at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 June 9. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The remainder of the article seems fine, if we have a link to the actual list, that would suffice if the whole thing can't be copied here.  Montanabw(talk) 05:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have any idea how long the response time is for getting an answer to your post? If not no worries. I noticed this today. I know that it does not affect this situation but I wonder if it might down the road. Thanks for your efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 01:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that most such inquiries close about one week after submission, but I've never gone through the process before. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Sorry for the delay. :) The official information is at WP:NFC - under "Unacceptable uses", see #4 and especially the footnote. There's an essay that offers further explanation about what kinds of lists are likely to be copyright protected and which not at Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

text: An excerpt of the ranking, i.e. the top 10, should be restored. This would clearly be permissible under fair use. --bender235 (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation

message: To editors looking at the edit history of this article please note that due to copyright violations you will not be able to access most of that history. If there is something specific that you need to know you can request admin assistance.  has offered to help but other admins may be available as well. MarnetteD|Talk 20:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: SO basically, we can't copy the list itself here, we can only talk about the list?  But the article has a link to the actual list, so that's how anyone who really wants to know can access it. Correct?  (grin)  Montanabw(talk) 18:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: For future reference

message: Although a great race horse, Phar Lap NEVER raced in the US!!!! He was scheduled to race but died in Mexico after winning a race there, before being shipped to the US! . Thus he was never even eligible for this list.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1300:427F:7876:BE93:3DD0:747F (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: looks like this article has the wrong title. The actual title of the book is Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century. It is a world wide list not just a US one. I will put a move of the article on my to-do list but anyone else who sees this is free to make the move. Thanks for catching this IP. MarnetteD|Talk 17:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phar Lap 

message: :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 Blood-Horse magazine Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century. Consensus on the alternative proposed title. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century →  – or  or  or . Per prior comments on the article Talk page in 2011 and 2019, the name of this "Top 100" doesn't include "U.S." We should also remove any other words that aren't really part of the name of the list. The list was first published in the magazine (see here: "The Top 100 list first appeared as a special issue of The Blood-Horse magazine, in February of 1999" and this article that says the poll result was published as a list and even republished by others and that even included Wikipedia for a while) but I have not found a clear name for the list itself. An expanded publication was published as a book named Thoroughbred Champions: Top 100 Racehorses of the 20th Century (e.g.  or ). The full name of the magazine appears to be The Blood-Horse (or to have been that historically, per the quote just above, although it is published by Blood-Horse LLC, without "The", and recent cover art seems to omit "The" and the hyphen as shown here, although those are still included in some text mentions such as at that link where it says "to renew your subscription to The Blood-Horse, without interruption, ...", although on the same page it says "ONE YEAR SUBSCRIPTION // TO BLOODHORSE MAGAZINE // TABLET AND ONLINE EDITION", without "The", without hyphen). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any other lists of top 100 racehorses of the 20th century that are discussed on Wikipedia? If not, then I don't see an ambiguity problem. Moreover, I suggested some alternative titles that include the publication's name if that is your concern. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the alternate names would do fine as long as it includes the name of the magazine. An article title of simply "top 100...", without the magazine's name, would certify in Wikipedia's voice (per title) that the list is accurate. The action of one person out of seven purposely and solely chose the number one and two horses. If he had listed Secretariat as one of the top ten then the horse would have been chosen number one, so his bias and act of not naming Secretariat as one of the top ten made the difference. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally the title of a published work is used (in title case) as the title of the Wikipedia article about it, without including the author or publisher name in the title (unless as a disambiguator if there is more than one published work discussed on Wikipedia with the same title). This is typically done without regard to the accuracy of the title, as with The Greatest Canadian, "Best Song Ever", The Greatest Trade Ever, The Greatest Show on Turf, The Biggest Bundle of Them All, The Worst...Album in the World...Ever...EVER!, The Ugliest Woman in the World, 100 Best Australian Albums, 100 Best Companies to Work For, 100 Best Workplaces in Europe, The 100 Greatest Films of Argentine Cinema, etc. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Relisting comment: Per my talk page requesting more time about the use of "U.S." in the title Kiwiz1338 (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Horse racing has been notified of this discussion. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Favor this, reads and summarizes well. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 November 2023