Talk:2015 Kentucky Derby

A news item involving 2015 Kentucky Derby was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 3 May 2015.

Wikipedia

United States: Kentucky / Louisville Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisville (assessed as Mid-importance).

Horse racing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horse racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Horse racing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horse racingWikipedia:WikiProject Horse racingTemplate:WikiProject Horse racingHorse racing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Also Eligible

I am aware they have numbers assigned based on points, but I'm going off of the page for 2014 which has Pablo del Monte's number as also eligible because he didn't run, as of right now neither horse is running, thus it is less confusing and more concise if it is listed as Also eligible. In addition, this doesn't mess up the sort-ability of the table. 24.145.129.38 (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the current format, although red may need to be used the morning of before they are ultimately removed. (Unless there actually is a SCR of course)

I do believe we may remove Tale of Verve now as the scratch time has passed, in other words there would be no replacement now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.129.38 (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Just because there is no replacement that doesn't mean there is a reason to have to no indication that the Also eligible was no part of the original entry field. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But Tale of Verve isn't 'Also eligible' for anything now and he isn't going to run, plus no years prior include the unused AEs. 24.145.129.38 (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My humble opinion is that the AEs should be included - I think they are new since the Road to the Kentucky Derby system was introduced - yes? Montanabw ^(talk) 02:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed The horse was entered into field and was accepted as an "Also eligible" is enough to have him included in this article. This article is not just about who starts and wins but the whole involvement into what curtails about the 2015 Kentucky Derby. IP Address editor seems to want to ignore references. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - Also Eligible number or saddlecloth entries has many references which include Equibase Official Field, & Blood-Horse, Daily Racing Form. Clearly Also Eligibles have a number and currently up until official race results should be displayed in the article. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't remove the horse's name; if an AE, then AE is part of the history. I'm wondering if the idea that went through here a while back to have the saddlecloth and the AE both in the link would work? Montanabw ^(talk) 23:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am splitting the difference by listing the AEs by number in the sort but as AE on the list - until, as just happened - they get to run. I also kept Stanford in place, just scratched. Also won't screw up the sort. Open to suggestions for improvements Montanabw ^(talk) 20:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]