Locked Classic horses lacking critical info

General discussions about the technical aspects of the site -- generating reports, reading reports, uploading information, forum techniques, etc.

Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, Lucy

User avatar
the Ol'Line Rebel
Maiden Special Weight
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: MD
Contact:

Locked Classic horses lacking critical info

Postby the Ol'Line Rebel » Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:02 am

Hi again. Well, I found a perfect example of the unfairness of locking up Classic winners so no info can be changed.

TALMA by PHARIS, 1948.

Not only is he actually registered as "Talma II" (unnoted), but he isn't even noted as a winner of anything, much less that he won the St. Leger!

He is locked up so it cannot be rectified easily. The only thing noted about this horse is that he was exported to Argentina!

User avatar
Lucy
Moderator
Posts: 2158
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 5:44 pm
Location: Watertown, MA

Postby Lucy » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:52 pm

With rare exception, we do not use roman numerals in this database. Generally, a horse will have them in one country and not in another, which creates far too much confusion.

The horse is in correctly as Talma (the second by that name in the DB). I updated the race record.

User avatar
Lucy
Moderator
Posts: 2158
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 5:44 pm
Location: Watertown, MA

Postby Lucy » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:42 pm

....half my post got cut off. That learn me to check back faster. :roll:

Anyway, you'll find many 'Roman Numeral-ed' horses will be locked, major winner or not, because people tend to delete the correct entry and re-add them with the suffixes. While it is preferred that Roman numeral designations get mentioned in the comments, it is always possible that the person entering the info was unaware of it.

User avatar
the Ol'Line Rebel
Maiden Special Weight
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby the Ol'Line Rebel » Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:59 am

Lucy wrote:With rare exception, we do not use roman numerals in this database. Generally, a horse will have them in one country and not in another, which creates far too much confusion.

The horse is in correctly as Talma (the second by that name in the DB). I updated the race record.




I am aware the horse's DB name is fine. I was merely saying it's good to enter comments that the horse is registered as a Roman numeral (it helps clarify which horse you're dealing with), but in this case I couldn't update any info to reflect that.

Thanks for adding the St. Leger. That is something too important to leave out!

User avatar
the Ol'Line Rebel
Maiden Special Weight
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: MD
Contact:

Postby the Ol'Line Rebel » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:22 am

Anyway, you'll find many 'Roman Numeral-ed' horses will be locked, major winner or not, because people tend to delete the correct entry and re-add them with the suffixes. While it is preferred that Roman numeral designations get mentioned in the comments, it is always possible that the person entering the info was unaware of it.



I did the preferred. I have learned that it's best to always stick with the root name only. Not only for Roman-# horses, but especially for ancient horses with "multiple" names - I hate that some have possessive or descriptive appellations added on the DB, such as "CROFT'S Partner" or "OLD BAY Spanker" when in old references, they often use JUST the root name (never mind mixing it up with other versions) and it's impossible to find it on this DB as a result, because someone entered it as a fuller descriptive and it has been locked and cannot be deleted.

Of course, all this would be rather moot if the PQ "search" box didn't require exact precision in naming. I'd prefer 1 could type in "Partner" and get ALL horses whose names include "Partner". :? (Gripe over) This is a great website, but that is 1 major failing.

Anyway, it's sounding more and more as if we need some general guidelines for looking up horses and so on. I've been thinking of doing it myself, at least for guidelines of adding new horses (to absolutely ensure 1 is not replicating a DB entry). :) [/quote]

User avatar
Lucy
Moderator
Posts: 2158
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 5:44 pm
Location: Watertown, MA

Postby Lucy » Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:41 pm

It would be nice, but alas, I have no say in the matter. :wink:

Of course, such guidelines could end up being ignored just as frequently as the seemingly simple 'please do not add quarter horses'. :roll: But it couldn't hurt.