|Preakness Stakes has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Life. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Horse racing||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Maryland / Baltimore||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Request for semiprotection
Race dates would be useful. --squadfifteen
- Article says it's "third Saturday in May", but I don't know how far back that tradition has held. DMacks 04:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Origin of name
- Article says it's named after a horse, which was named after a stable. DMacks 04:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Know this is a long time later, but better late than never. It was named after the horse, Preakness, b. 1867, who won the first ever stakes race at Pimlico (the Dinner Party Stakes). He won quite a few races and was purchased by the Duke of Hamilton and taken to England. The Duke found him so difficult he shot and killed him. This charming deed caused a reform in England concerning the handling of animals. JiggeryPokery (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
If the references  added by 126.96.36.199 are valid, then the note about Secretariat's time could be included. I agree with the rv, since style of the edits is non-encyclopedic, but I expect we'll see more. Jer ome 23:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The article makes it sound as though rudbeckia hirta (AKA black-eyed susans) are used in the victory wreath, but the actual flower used is a daisy which is painted black at the center. Are there any objections to changing the article to clarify this? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
There should be a section detailing the massive festival surrounding the stakes. Any event where 100,000+ people gather for a few hours once a year should be considered notable enough for WP. I'll start the section after I attend this year, and get some pictures.--Eplack (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Contemporary sources suggest that the Preakness was run as a handicap at least twice: in 1912 and 1918. I haven't seen this mentioned in accounts of the race's history. Tigerboy1966 22:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Furlongs or Kilometers
I think that the distance of the race should be expressed in miles and furlongs. Another editor thinks we should use kilometers. What do you think? Tigerboy1966 21:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wasn't trying to insult you by immediately reverting it back to my addition of adding the race distance in paranthesis after the original furlongs. I personally thought it was interesting that the race was 1911 meters which is a much more standard unit of measure, as is miles. A more well known unit of measure isn't listed until the "Triple Crown" entry of this page. Listing in either miles, kilometers, or meters makes the distances of the race known to many many more readers instanteously (known as they read the article).
- The way the human mind works makes it much more valuable as an informative source to by far more readers with a secondary listing in paranthesis at the first mention. I am not an avid horse racing fan, so if my edit was an enthusiaist faux pas, I apologize, I honestly thought you were just messing with me as I have a tendancy to upset high profile editors and authorities in specific disciplines.Dirtclustit (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- So I hear you saying it would be OK to list units of measure in miles (1.19 miles) instead of metric units in paranthesis at the first mention of distance? You are not opposed to a more common standard unit of measure just prefer miles to kilometers? I think either way would be a significant benefit to the reader, if you would accept 1.2 miles I would appreciate itDirtclustit (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not trying to upset you or cause any problems, I guess what I am saying is I will list it in miles if the only problem is that traditionally, American races lengths are measured in miles and furlongs. So I am going to put my edit back to include the addition, but it will be in miles and furlongs or "furlongs (miles)" if you or anyone else reverts it back then I will drop the subject completely as it really is nothing personal, and it really isn't a big deal to me and I can understand how my edit could be taking personally as I wouldn't like it if a science article was edited and re-edited after reversion by someone who had no knowledge of scientific writing/notation. From our exchange I am assuming the problem is with metrics, and not content or personal. No worries or debates from my end if my edit is again reverted for other reasons, I will consider the matter closed, but I am listing it in parenthesis in a more well known unit. I am putting 1-13/16 mile, but again if anyone objects I will leave it as a closed matter (leave it as soley 9.5 furlongs without any other unit)Dirtclustit (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure you meant well and I'm sorry that I was a bit short with you. The thing is that distances in British and American horse racing are always given in miles and furlongs. I have no problem with adding metric equivalents after the traditional ones, in fact it would improve many articles. If you do, please use metres rather than kilometres. Tigerboy1966 18:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I would vote that the age column be deleted from the winners list because a) Horses older than 3 were only eligible to run in a very limited number of years, and not since (I think) 1915. b) The one year where a horse (the proper term for an un-gelded male over age 4 in 1890) won can be indicated with an asterisk. c) Deleting the age column would simplify the chart and make it (more) consistent with the winners charts for the Kentucky Derby and Belmont Stakes.
I think it would be great to see full consistency between the winners charts for the three Triple Crown races, but this would require other changes. For instance, either adding track condition to the pages for both the Preakness and the Belmont or deleting the column from the page for the Kentucky Derby. I plan to bring up the issue on the talk section there.
Further, if we are really going for full accuracy, shouldn't the winners chart here have a separation indicating that the 1890 and 1910-1915 races were run as the "Preakness Handicap" as indicated in the article? Jf2 (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Why don't the articles have the race times included in the charts?
- First Place Winner (Justify) ... winning time = 2:04.20.
- Second Place Winner (Name) ... winning time = 2:05.20
- And so forth