Talk:List of historical horses

Please have a look at the title-change discussion at Talk:List_of_historical_animals#Historical or Historic ?. Not many seem to have that page in their watchlist. Jay 21:08, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I plan to remove the word "historical" from the article name. See Talk:List_of_historical_animals for further discussion. Jay 08:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. I added King, Cloud and Hollywood Dun It. Of the three, King certainly qualifies as "historical". The other two are merely celebrities, in one form or other in the horse world. I'm not sure if that qualifies their entry or not - I'll let others decide.

"Historic" matter

I think the word "historic" should be deleted from the tittle, that or delete the non-historical horses from the list.

I added Rocinante to the list because I saw Silver and thought that this is another famous, and more historical, horse so it should be in the list.

Historical simply means "of history" (actual or real): (Of, concerning, or in accordance with recorded history), as opposed to "fictional", "mythical", etc. —107.15.157.44 (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider deleting article contents and refer to catgegories

Folks, I discovered that there are about 600 horses listed in the "famous horses" category. Many of the horses listed on this page have no links to the articles about them.

May I recommend that we eliminate ALL the lists here and instead make this into some sort of a navigational "tree" to the category pages so as articles are added the page doesn't have to be constantly updated and maintained?

That said, the famous horses categories also are in desperate need of work. There are subcategories within subcategories, horses listed as famous horses, then again as famous racehorses, etc. It needs some major cleanup. Ideally, the "famous horses" category would have very few actual articles linked, but rather be a list of the subcategories, which need to be redone...the structure here is actually much better! The list of thoroughbred race horses alone is a life's work for someone!

At any rate, this page, while a great idea, is actually impossible to keep accurate to what's in wikipedia and I suggest we make it a category tree instead of an actual list. Thoughts? Montanabw 07:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that at the very least some of these lists should go. At the moment many of these horse cannot really be regarded as historical and are not linked to articles. Quite a few Tbs are also in the leading Tbs article, too.Cgoodwin (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, I won't kick. I think we do need the list of lists, but I think the categories really do most of the work of listing famous individual animals. Fewer the better, in my opinion. Montanabw^(talk) 03:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of famous horses

We should move this to List of famous horses because that's what it is. I've just been reading it and it's not always clear that they are all truly historical so much as simply famous. Either that or come to some standard of inclusion and delete all those that do not meet some standard of "historicalness", (if you would pardon the term of art. "Historicality"? Chrisrus (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Famous" is subjective, whereas "historical" is objective (Of, concerning, or in accordance with recorded history). 107.15.157.44 (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]