![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
" male horses are considered more aggressive racers and generally have a significant competitive advantage." This is the opinion of some trainers and owners who do not understand horse dynamics, which are far different than a human one. I also recognize that there are separate filly and mare races. However, given that horse herds are matriarchal (i.e. the mares are the leaders of the herd) in nature, there needs to be a factual source that backs up the claim that colts and geldings have a competitive advantage because of their gender. Thus far, in 15 years of being in the business of raising thoroughbreds, I have not seen one. Gcal1971 ( talk) 19:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Pharis was unbeaten in his 3 starts, but uncertain as to whether to include? Cgoodwin ( talk) 07:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This page doesn't sort properly.-- Robwjdawson ( talk) 22:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this listing could be named Lists of notable Thoroughbred racehorses or something similar? It was expanded beyond the unbeaten list and there isn't any similar list in WP or elswhere to my knowledge. Cgoodwin ( talk) 06:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest an additional section in this article about the breeding impact of certain notable horses. Many (most?) modern race horse winners trace back to just 3 bloodlines ( Mr. Prospector, Nasrullah, and Northern Dancer). And 2 of them trace to Native Dancer. In 2008, all 20 entries in the Kentucky Derby were Native Dancer descendants. And the winner for the last 15 years or so has been a Native Dancer descendant. T-bonham ( talk) 10:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of leading Thoroughbred racehorses's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Morris":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I added relevant facts and info on Ruffian's 10 wins in succession. Lady's Secret's 10 Grade 1 wins in her career, and Easy Goer and Alysheba. All facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.74.124 ( talk) 07:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh so you Incorrectly deleted Ruffian's 10 successive wins, and Lady's Secret's 10 Grade 1 wins?? And who said that Nine Grade 1 wins, or Nine of anything will make a list be too long? There is a LONG List of Horses who won 3 or 4 races in the article. In fact, I so far have only found TWO(Easy Goer, Alysheba) Other Horses who have won 9 Grade 1 races in their career. I would think that would be significant, especially in the category of amount of Grade 1 wins by a horse? Thoughts —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.15.74.124 (
talk) 10:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a follow up, I did some research, and found that Bayakoa had 13 Grade 1 wins, Paseana had 10 Grade 1 wins,and as previously noted Lady's Secret had 11 Grade 1 wins. And just as importantly, in all of the decades(1970's,1980's,1990's,2000's) since the start(1973) of the grading system, ONLY THREE(3) horses have won Nine(9)Grade 1 races,and they are Easy Goer,Alysheba and Sky Beauty. I feel that since these are the only three to have Nine Grade 1 wins, I believe it is very relevant to the article. In fact, in my opinion, these three horses are more relevant than the loads of horses who won 3 or 4 races and were unbeaten in those few races. Thoughts —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.15.74.124 (
talk)
13:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Please sign your comments with 4 tildes. Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Dubai, England, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, Peru, South Africa, Uruguay plus some other countries, have graded/group races and I can assure that these countries also have many multiple winners of these races, too. Cgoodwin ( talk) 04:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
So based upon the fact that there might be some from foreign countries, the only three American horses to have won nine Grade 1 races aren't significant and relevant to the article on a list of leading thoroughbreds? Is that your answer? I'm assuming so. 76.15.74.124 ( talk) 05:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Black Caviar is now up to 9 Group 1 wins, and must be in consideration too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.41.165 ( talk) 16:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Could we agree not to put horses on the undefeated list until they retire. After all EVERY racehorse starts out undefeated. Tigerboy1966 ( talk) 15:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I have deleted Wenona Girl form this list in the past but someone has put her back there. She raced before Group/Grade 1 racing came into existence, and if we put her on the list we also have to put in many others who won major races before the 70s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sg2910 ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I have tagged a lot of the information on Puerto Rican horses with "citation needed". There needs to be a source for these remarkable records, or they need to be removed. Tigerboy1966 15:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Removed the above. Tagged similar material in the "Most Wins in a Season" section. Tigerboy1966 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Last warning: provide citations or they go. Tigerboy1966 15:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Gone: slapped another bunch of citation needed notices on the unbeaten sequences section. You know the drill by now. Tigerboy1966 21:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Removed. I wouldn't want to be guilty of cultural bias, so I've tagged another tranche of mainly Aus/NZ horses that didn't have either a ref or their own articles. Tigerboy1966 07:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This really needs to be clearly defined or removed. What exactly is meant by a "stakes race". Tigerboy1966 15:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Added loads of citation needed tags, mainly to Aus/NZ horses. It all seems to be good faith stuff, there is at least one Melbourne Cup winner among them, but they do need referencing. Tigerboy1966 15:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Jorrocks did not win 30 races in any season. In 1946 he had just 8 starts. Detail of his record from NSW Sporting Magazine Vol.1 No. 1 Oct 1848 can be referenced at -
http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/discover_collections/society_art/races/sporting/magazine/turner.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.188.10.154 ( talk) 17:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe some of the section titles are confusing.
For example "Undefeated Winners" is a tautology. By definition winners are undefeated. A less ambiguous title would be "Successive wins by Undefeated Horses" or similar.
You then have a title "Most Wins". Again, ambiguous, in my view. If you have a title "Undefeated Winners" then for conformity the title shoud be "Most wins though defeated" to clarify that although overall such horses have had more wins than those who remain undefeated, such wins were not in succession.
You then have a title "Successive Victories". Black Caviar does not appear in the list despite having 25 successive victories! This would place her 5th on the list. To clarify, the title should be "Successive wins, though defeated" or similar. Only then would Black Caviar be rightfully excluded. 203.9.151.254 ( talk) 13:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
HELLO - ANYBODY THERE? 203.9.151.254 ( talk) 20:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't Secretariat be on this list?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretariat_(horse)
"He is considered to be one of the greatest Thoroughbreds of all time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.47.197 ( talk) 18:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
List of leading Thoroughbred racehorses. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Tigerboy1966 and anyone else who's interested, what do you think about softening the wording in the intro about it including "most" great horses to "many", and making a note that many other champions do not appear (especially I would think in North America because of the long-time popularity of handicap racing). Just feels weird to me to not have horses like Kelso showing up without some chitchat. And its a bit of a cheat IMO to show Danzig, who never entered a stakes race, and not any number of other horses.
Although I agree with the second paragraph, not sure why it's in this article. Is it to explain why we don't have a section on fastest horses as measured by the clock? In third paragraph, we bring up jump racing but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article. Maybe say something like "Jump horses have longer careers and some horses like X may amass a large number of major wins over the course of their careers." In fourth paragraph, we start by talking about triple crown but then jump to "Below are listed..." without any segue - at least in the US, there's only a small overlap between the two types of champions.
FYI, I also added some wording in the grade one section about the fact that the grading only came into play in the seventies. Does it look OK? Jlvsclrk ( talk) 06:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
How far down the number of wins do we go with this? We now have a couple of 5-win streaks added - is this notable enough to be included, or is it best to stick at 6 wins minumum? -- Bcp67 ( talk) 11:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Should there be some sort of minimum standard for making the leading lists (esp for the undefeated and only one defeat)? Anything we come up with is arbitrary but there are a lot of horses out there with short undistinguished careers who nonetheless were say 3 or 4 out of 4. Are we trying to create an all inclusive list - because I don't know if that's possible especially the farther back you look. Maybe cut off the main lists at five or ten wins and extend the "other" section for truly notable winners? Just spitballing. Some of the recent additions are notable and definitely belong, others just aren't IMO. Jlvsclrk ( talk) 20:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of leading Thoroughbred racehorses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of leading Thoroughbred racehorses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Under "$10 million prizewinning horses" I notice that no citation was given for Golden Sixty's USD earnings |
If the heading refers to USD 10,000,000 then it should follow the horses should be listed in USD order should it not. |
For your information I have calculated the Worlds Top 6 throughbred earners in various currencies ranked by USD earnings |
Winx is the leader in USD, EUR and HKD while Golden Sixty is the leader in GBP, AUD and JPY, the differences resulting from the forex rates applicable to each race date (Reserve Bank of Australia daily rates used (rba.gov.au). 'equibase.com' does not publish USD earnings for horses that race in Australia and Hong Kong. Their USD earnings for the four Japanese and American horses named are not materially different from the Australian forex rates used and and any difference would not alter the USD order below. |
Connections have recently said that Golden Sixty will resume racing in either the G2 BOCHK Private Wealth Jockey Club Mile (1600m) on 19 November 2023 or G1 Longines Hong Kong Mile (1600m) on 10 December 2023 (both run in Hong Kong). So this order may well change in the next couple of months. |
Winx (AUS) 2011 (mare) |
USD 19,753,694 |
GBP 14,697,269 |
EUR 17,399,539 |
AUD 26,451,175 |
JPY 2,201,799,600 |
HKD 154,045,777 |
Orfevre (JPN) 2008 |
USD 18,988,823 |
GBP 11,880,602 |
EUR 14,088,082 |
AUD 18,869,240 |
JPY 1,599,879,264 |
HKD 147,537,935 |
Golden Sixty (AUS) 2015 |
USD 18,982,632 |
GBP 14,730,826 |
EUR 16,838,600 |
AUD 26,977,328 |
JPY 2,206,846,805 |
HKD 147,930,600 |
Gentildonna (JPN) 2009 (mare) |
USD 18,481,223 |
GBP 11,569,967 |
EUR 14,158,606 |
AUD 19,256,471 |
JPY 1,726,819,728 |
HKD 143,365,858 |
Almond Eye (JPN) 2015 (mare) |
USD 17,616,299 |
GBP 13,454,567 |
EUR 15,300,862 |
AUD 24,566,550 |
JPY 1,918,270,493 |
HKD 137,601,316 |
Arrogate (USA) 2013 |
USD 17,422,600 |
GBP 13,877,428 |
EUR 16,092,160 |
AUD 22,934,751 |
JPY 1,929,439,543 |
HKD 135,230,213 |
Tom (USA) Rolfe ( talk) 06:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
" male horses are considered more aggressive racers and generally have a significant competitive advantage." This is the opinion of some trainers and owners who do not understand horse dynamics, which are far different than a human one. I also recognize that there are separate filly and mare races. However, given that horse herds are matriarchal (i.e. the mares are the leaders of the herd) in nature, there needs to be a factual source that backs up the claim that colts and geldings have a competitive advantage because of their gender. Thus far, in 15 years of being in the business of raising thoroughbreds, I have not seen one. Gcal1971 ( talk) 19:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Pharis was unbeaten in his 3 starts, but uncertain as to whether to include? Cgoodwin ( talk) 07:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This page doesn't sort properly.-- Robwjdawson ( talk) 22:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this listing could be named Lists of notable Thoroughbred racehorses or something similar? It was expanded beyond the unbeaten list and there isn't any similar list in WP or elswhere to my knowledge. Cgoodwin ( talk) 06:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest an additional section in this article about the breeding impact of certain notable horses. Many (most?) modern race horse winners trace back to just 3 bloodlines ( Mr. Prospector, Nasrullah, and Northern Dancer). And 2 of them trace to Native Dancer. In 2008, all 20 entries in the Kentucky Derby were Native Dancer descendants. And the winner for the last 15 years or so has been a Native Dancer descendant. T-bonham ( talk) 10:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of leading Thoroughbred racehorses's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Morris":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I added relevant facts and info on Ruffian's 10 wins in succession. Lady's Secret's 10 Grade 1 wins in her career, and Easy Goer and Alysheba. All facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.74.124 ( talk) 07:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh so you Incorrectly deleted Ruffian's 10 successive wins, and Lady's Secret's 10 Grade 1 wins?? And who said that Nine Grade 1 wins, or Nine of anything will make a list be too long? There is a LONG List of Horses who won 3 or 4 races in the article. In fact, I so far have only found TWO(Easy Goer, Alysheba) Other Horses who have won 9 Grade 1 races in their career. I would think that would be significant, especially in the category of amount of Grade 1 wins by a horse? Thoughts —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.15.74.124 (
talk) 10:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a follow up, I did some research, and found that Bayakoa had 13 Grade 1 wins, Paseana had 10 Grade 1 wins,and as previously noted Lady's Secret had 11 Grade 1 wins. And just as importantly, in all of the decades(1970's,1980's,1990's,2000's) since the start(1973) of the grading system, ONLY THREE(3) horses have won Nine(9)Grade 1 races,and they are Easy Goer,Alysheba and Sky Beauty. I feel that since these are the only three to have Nine Grade 1 wins, I believe it is very relevant to the article. In fact, in my opinion, these three horses are more relevant than the loads of horses who won 3 or 4 races and were unbeaten in those few races. Thoughts —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.15.74.124 (
talk)
13:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Please sign your comments with 4 tildes. Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Dubai, England, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, Peru, South Africa, Uruguay plus some other countries, have graded/group races and I can assure that these countries also have many multiple winners of these races, too. Cgoodwin ( talk) 04:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
So based upon the fact that there might be some from foreign countries, the only three American horses to have won nine Grade 1 races aren't significant and relevant to the article on a list of leading thoroughbreds? Is that your answer? I'm assuming so. 76.15.74.124 ( talk) 05:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Black Caviar is now up to 9 Group 1 wins, and must be in consideration too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.41.165 ( talk) 16:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Could we agree not to put horses on the undefeated list until they retire. After all EVERY racehorse starts out undefeated. Tigerboy1966 ( talk) 15:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I have deleted Wenona Girl form this list in the past but someone has put her back there. She raced before Group/Grade 1 racing came into existence, and if we put her on the list we also have to put in many others who won major races before the 70s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sg2910 ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I have tagged a lot of the information on Puerto Rican horses with "citation needed". There needs to be a source for these remarkable records, or they need to be removed. Tigerboy1966 15:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Removed the above. Tagged similar material in the "Most Wins in a Season" section. Tigerboy1966 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Last warning: provide citations or they go. Tigerboy1966 15:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Gone: slapped another bunch of citation needed notices on the unbeaten sequences section. You know the drill by now. Tigerboy1966 21:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Removed. I wouldn't want to be guilty of cultural bias, so I've tagged another tranche of mainly Aus/NZ horses that didn't have either a ref or their own articles. Tigerboy1966 07:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This really needs to be clearly defined or removed. What exactly is meant by a "stakes race". Tigerboy1966 15:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Added loads of citation needed tags, mainly to Aus/NZ horses. It all seems to be good faith stuff, there is at least one Melbourne Cup winner among them, but they do need referencing. Tigerboy1966 15:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Jorrocks did not win 30 races in any season. In 1946 he had just 8 starts. Detail of his record from NSW Sporting Magazine Vol.1 No. 1 Oct 1848 can be referenced at -
http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/discover_collections/society_art/races/sporting/magazine/turner.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.188.10.154 ( talk) 17:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe some of the section titles are confusing.
For example "Undefeated Winners" is a tautology. By definition winners are undefeated. A less ambiguous title would be "Successive wins by Undefeated Horses" or similar.
You then have a title "Most Wins". Again, ambiguous, in my view. If you have a title "Undefeated Winners" then for conformity the title shoud be "Most wins though defeated" to clarify that although overall such horses have had more wins than those who remain undefeated, such wins were not in succession.
You then have a title "Successive Victories". Black Caviar does not appear in the list despite having 25 successive victories! This would place her 5th on the list. To clarify, the title should be "Successive wins, though defeated" or similar. Only then would Black Caviar be rightfully excluded. 203.9.151.254 ( talk) 13:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
HELLO - ANYBODY THERE? 203.9.151.254 ( talk) 20:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't Secretariat be on this list?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretariat_(horse)
"He is considered to be one of the greatest Thoroughbreds of all time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.47.197 ( talk) 18:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
List of leading Thoroughbred racehorses. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Tigerboy1966 and anyone else who's interested, what do you think about softening the wording in the intro about it including "most" great horses to "many", and making a note that many other champions do not appear (especially I would think in North America because of the long-time popularity of handicap racing). Just feels weird to me to not have horses like Kelso showing up without some chitchat. And its a bit of a cheat IMO to show Danzig, who never entered a stakes race, and not any number of other horses.
Although I agree with the second paragraph, not sure why it's in this article. Is it to explain why we don't have a section on fastest horses as measured by the clock? In third paragraph, we bring up jump racing but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article. Maybe say something like "Jump horses have longer careers and some horses like X may amass a large number of major wins over the course of their careers." In fourth paragraph, we start by talking about triple crown but then jump to "Below are listed..." without any segue - at least in the US, there's only a small overlap between the two types of champions.
FYI, I also added some wording in the grade one section about the fact that the grading only came into play in the seventies. Does it look OK? Jlvsclrk ( talk) 06:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
How far down the number of wins do we go with this? We now have a couple of 5-win streaks added - is this notable enough to be included, or is it best to stick at 6 wins minumum? -- Bcp67 ( talk) 11:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Should there be some sort of minimum standard for making the leading lists (esp for the undefeated and only one defeat)? Anything we come up with is arbitrary but there are a lot of horses out there with short undistinguished careers who nonetheless were say 3 or 4 out of 4. Are we trying to create an all inclusive list - because I don't know if that's possible especially the farther back you look. Maybe cut off the main lists at five or ten wins and extend the "other" section for truly notable winners? Just spitballing. Some of the recent additions are notable and definitely belong, others just aren't IMO. Jlvsclrk ( talk) 20:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of leading Thoroughbred racehorses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of leading Thoroughbred racehorses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Under "$10 million prizewinning horses" I notice that no citation was given for Golden Sixty's USD earnings |
If the heading refers to USD 10,000,000 then it should follow the horses should be listed in USD order should it not. |
For your information I have calculated the Worlds Top 6 throughbred earners in various currencies ranked by USD earnings |
Winx is the leader in USD, EUR and HKD while Golden Sixty is the leader in GBP, AUD and JPY, the differences resulting from the forex rates applicable to each race date (Reserve Bank of Australia daily rates used (rba.gov.au). 'equibase.com' does not publish USD earnings for horses that race in Australia and Hong Kong. Their USD earnings for the four Japanese and American horses named are not materially different from the Australian forex rates used and and any difference would not alter the USD order below. |
Connections have recently said that Golden Sixty will resume racing in either the G2 BOCHK Private Wealth Jockey Club Mile (1600m) on 19 November 2023 or G1 Longines Hong Kong Mile (1600m) on 10 December 2023 (both run in Hong Kong). So this order may well change in the next couple of months. |
Winx (AUS) 2011 (mare) |
USD 19,753,694 |
GBP 14,697,269 |
EUR 17,399,539 |
AUD 26,451,175 |
JPY 2,201,799,600 |
HKD 154,045,777 |
Orfevre (JPN) 2008 |
USD 18,988,823 |
GBP 11,880,602 |
EUR 14,088,082 |
AUD 18,869,240 |
JPY 1,599,879,264 |
HKD 147,537,935 |
Golden Sixty (AUS) 2015 |
USD 18,982,632 |
GBP 14,730,826 |
EUR 16,838,600 |
AUD 26,977,328 |
JPY 2,206,846,805 |
HKD 147,930,600 |
Gentildonna (JPN) 2009 (mare) |
USD 18,481,223 |
GBP 11,569,967 |
EUR 14,158,606 |
AUD 19,256,471 |
JPY 1,726,819,728 |
HKD 143,365,858 |
Almond Eye (JPN) 2015 (mare) |
USD 17,616,299 |
GBP 13,454,567 |
EUR 15,300,862 |
AUD 24,566,550 |
JPY 1,918,270,493 |
HKD 137,601,316 |
Arrogate (USA) 2013 |
USD 17,422,600 |
GBP 13,877,428 |
EUR 16,092,160 |
AUD 22,934,751 |
JPY 1,929,439,543 |
HKD 135,230,213 |
Tom (USA) Rolfe ( talk) 06:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)