Talk:J.W. Harris (bull rider)

Notability
J.W. Harris meets notability per WP:NRODEO

The Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association holds its finals, the National Finals Rodeo at the end of every year and elects champions in each of its event. J.W. Harris is a four time World Bull Riding Champion, so per this guideline he meets the definition.

He's also a Professional Bull Riders and Championship Bull Riding bull rider, winning many awards and per this link, the PBR is one of the 10 fastest growing sports in America:


 * http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbelzer/2016/01/21/professional-bull-riders-pbr-has-created-the-most-authentic-sponsorship-platform-in-sports/#7b132a4d3970 PBR now draws more than 3 million fans over 100 global live events on an annual basis, with television broadcasts reaching more than half a billion households in 40 countries and territories around the world.

Tags
I have tagged the article for style and tone issues. I started to edit for encyclopedic tone, but gave up when I saw more feature-style writing ahead. Words like "Unfortunately" are not neutral. Paragraphs like these should be rewritten in a dispassionate, encyclopedic tone: "At the NFR, it was official due to the earnings that Harris won the bull riding championship. As hard as it is to win a champion, it's even harder to win back-to-back championships. Considering he broke his hand in the second round and did not ride a bull at this NFR, it is only through his $108,004 lead coming into the NFR that he was able to pull off the win." The article also seems excessively long for a sportsman at the peak of his career. It really belongs in a magazine. Details should be summarized and placed in block paragraphs. We do not need a season-by-season wrap-up. Yoninah (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

J.W. Harris is one of those one-in-a-million athletes that is able to compete in both the PRCA and the PBR circuits, not to mention the CBR. Very few athletes have done so or do so (compete in both). This means more competition to cover. He is also one of the most popular active bull riders competing. I have covered all seasons for other riders and bulls without comment. My mentor is the one who showed me how to use the Seasons section, and she's been here 11 years. I do have some intent to work on making the article more concise, but that is not going to happen until I'm done working on it. I still haven't added his CBR competition yet. This is how I always how work. I get the content in from the sources first, and then I work on polishing it. It was brought to Mainspace a tad early because one of my mentors expressed that this individual is highly searched for and he did a page move quickly for me to get a DAB page freed up. And the DYK has to be done in seven days, so here we are. I am in the middle of a big issue with another article right now. But I should be able to look at this in about two days. Also, there may be some content that is not entirely encyclopedic, but I am tired of hearing it is written like a magazine. That's crap. I have never written for a magazine in my life. I am a professional technical writer by trade for over 20 years. Just say it's not encyclopedic or it's puffery, etc. or whatever terms are in the Manual of Style, etc. Leave the drama out of it. This is the second time I am putting up with you editing my article anyway you see fit without even letting me know first. And I know that what you are doing is not typical in DYK. No one else does it to me in DYK. They just ask me to make edits. dawnleelynn(talk) 02:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Try to remember that I have only been editing 1 1/4 years here. You've probably been here a lot longer. Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 03:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You might say that sometimes it reads like conversation. This reads like a magazine:  dawnleelynn(talk) 04:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoa. I'm sorry you feel my edits aren't constructive. I usually try to touch up articles so I can promote them to the main page quickly, without bothering the nominator for small edits. In this case, too, I just edited a few lines and then turned it over to you. Once you've nominated the page at DYK, it can sit on the nomination page for weeks as issues are ironed out. I'm happy to wait for you to take care of the fixes. Yoninah (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't say your edits were not constructive. But I really felt that with this article I had improved at least some since writing Eternal Sun. I'm happy to agree that the article misses on encyclopedic tone in places and has puffery. I was, however, brusque, in my tone, and I apologize. In Eternal Sun, you first tried to coax me through the edits before doing any yourself. You even suggested a place where they do copy edits. So that's where I got that idea along with the other editors. I've also had a rough two weeks over at bull riding, which is normally so quiet. Lots of drive-by anonymous editors making unsourced edits and reverting. And then an admin got involved in one issue uninvited. That's the issue I'm dealing with right now. I should not take it out on others. Anyway, the magazine thing is the only thing that really bugs me, I'm sorry for the rest, though. It was not intent to make you think everything you do I disagree with. I apologize sincerely to give you the wrong impression. I really could use your help to make my articles better, I shouldn't be so touchy. Thanks for your help. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)I forgot to add a ping yesterday.


 * I just wanted to add that the magazine comments hurt my feelings and totally make me feel like I'm failing at this Wikipedia thing. They don't really add anything constructive for me, so if you could please leave this out, I'm happy to learn from comments that this or that is puffery like in WP:PEACOCK or WP:TONE.


 * I just looked at my article to assess a few things. You slapped it with two tags? Really? Unbelievable. There is no way that entire article is one story or that it's all not encyclopedic. Anyway, I'm not trying out for a good article here. See WP:DYKNOT.


 * A Do You Know is not a "A smaller-scale version of either featured content or Good Articles, though selected Good Articles do appear in the DYK box. Articles must meet the basic criteria set out on this page but do not have to be of very high quality. It is fine for articles to be incomplete (though not unfinished), to have red links, to be capable of being expanded or improved further, and so on."


 * So yes, my article is not quite complete and could improved further. I knew that coming in. It's definitely not going to meet Good Article criteria. If I wanted that I would have done it before the DYK.


 * Also see MOS:BODY regarding the headings.


 * "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose."


 * So the section headings being done by the season as my mentor suggested were done so because long sections are said to be in need of section headers by the Manual of Style. Hey, even our Manual of Style at my last job recommended them. So, there has to be some type of heading. That's a darn long section in this article if they were removed.


 * Last of all, I have not even covered half of Harris' career. I just picked out highlights from each season and finals where I could find them. If you check his profile on ProBullStats, which is the PBR and PRCA outs (rides), you'll it is 14 pages. And some are probably missing.


 * https://probullstats.com/riders/outlist.php?dguy=JW+Harris


 * I'm going to try to get to this soon...maybe some today... and I'll be rethinking this whole DYK thing now that my 5 QPQs are used up. It's going to be too much work for it if I have to do a review on someone's else nom plus do this kind of review on my own...just for my hook to appear on the main page for one day. Blah!


 * dawnleelynn(talk) 23:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

p.s. Does that part where I tell the date of the event, the place, the event name, the bull he rode, and the score he received, is that a story too? Is not encylopedic?

Articles that have story or puffery in them - just some samples:
 * Fannie Flagg Yes, the beginning of this article sounds like a story.
 * Celia M. Burleigh sounds like a story.
 * Leslie Winston has "facts" in here that are not encyclopedic (stressing bonds among the cast...)
 * Claire Bloom for sure sounds like a story and has puffery and is rife with quotations to get otherwise unencyclopedic material in

IA Bot change
Your change is not Wikipedia content. It's from a bot and it is not policy. The reference to another article I created was just to refer to my research where I demonstrated why using this bot to create these archive links is not a good idea and also why it is not backed up by any Wikipedia policy that a user can claim it belongs in an article. I believe no user can give any defense to using this tool to create this archive links on an article. And you feel so strongly about it you are willing to defend it up to the 3 revert rule. Why so intent on using it? Do you plan to be the one that stewards this article? Why so invested in using this tool on this article? The last editor that I ran into using this tool acted the same way, like it was the most important tool ever. On article they would never be watching over. This the use of this tool to add these archive links actually makes many mistakes and makes it more difficult to track and fix future broken links. But you go on, you are right by your might. I could send you to the Bot noticeboard as well where you could read about all the mistakes the IA Bot makes, but I have a feeling you wouldn't read those either. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand this comment at all. I didn't say it was Wikipedia content.  It's not from a 'bot, it's from a script.  I don't understand what "policy" you think I'm claiming or mandating.  The link to the tool appears on the history page of around 6 million articles and is a WMF tool.  I'm more intent on preventing people from owning articles and future-proofing things for our readers.  You made some bizarre claim about me not even being entitled to edit the article because it was selected for DYK.  That's most peculiar.  You can assume as much bad faith as you like, but for every single complaint like this I see, I get a hundred "thanks" for improving things for our readers today and for the future.  I'm not saying anything about it being the "most important tool ever", but if WMF are content to see it linked to from every single article history, I'm not arguing.  Of course, if your complaints are valid and have been directed correctly, I would have expected the tool to have been pulled by now.  But it hasn't been.  How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I sincerely believed one isn't suposed to be making large changes when an article is in a prep queue. Regarding the comment about a bot. This is from the first edit summary when you ran the script: " (Rescuing 44 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v1.6.4)) (undo | thank) (Tag: IABotManagementConsole [1.1])" IABot is short for Internet Archive Bot. Maybe it's a script but even then it's run by the bot. The onus is on the user as far accepting the responsibility for how it works in Wikipedia. Sorry I wasn't clearer in my first post. What I meant is that the changes the Bot makes to an article are not like adding sourced content to the encyclopedia and are not governed by any policy. They are external, third party content, not encyclopedic that is being added to the encyclopedia. That's the key, it's third party content, by the way which does make mistakes. Thus, content added by the Bot is not protected by any Wikipedia policies and thus, nothing requires the content to be accepted in the article. Yes, the tool is on the history of so many pages, but not as it used in this article. It is most commonly used to fix a few broken links and then those links are posted in the talk page. I have been fixing broken links for 1 and 1/2 years, and I do it manually and I correct mistakes the bot makes all the time. That use does not make archive links out of all the references in the article. I have only come across a few such articles where this particular use is made. And I have used my real life experience in software development as well as my extensive experience fixing broken links to provide an extensive argument as to why this use of running the bot to generate archive links on all of the references is not a good idea. I'm not assuming bad faith on your part, I just believe I have done more research on this use of the tool. And I have documented it as I said before. And I did go overboard on some of the things I said, so sorry about that. The tool being pulled for this issue is moot of course, because the tool is not being used for this particular use very often. It is being used to fix broken lists the majority of the time. I haven't come across an article where all of the references have been run through the tool to have archive links added to them in quite some time. So, if we are to proceed in talking about this issue further, I will cease talking with drama, but we need to be clear that there are several uses for the tool, and this issue is the lesser one. Thanks for listening.

P.S. I am not practising ownership, I am not done with the article. See WP:DYKNOT "t is fine for articles to be incomplete (though not unfinished)". dawnleelynn(talk) 18:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * How many of the 44 archive links didn't work? Adding archives is not a big change at all.  I could certainly make some big changes but tend not to in this DYKs, just enough to make sure they're good enough to go on the main page, and adding the archives at the same time while fixing and dead links is a good thing.  I've been using the tool for quite some time and your issue is the only one I've come across I'm afraid.  I would estimate that I've run it across four or five hundred articles in the last couple of months.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you verified every reference in the 400-500 articles you performed this use of the bot on? I don't believe for one second that 400-500 articles never had one archive link that didn't work right. Just because they added to the page doesn't mean if you follow the link, it works right. Can you seriously tell me that the bot worked perfectly in all of those articles? Not one broken archive link? Not one link that pointed to a capture that was no good? Adding the archivelinks not being a big change is a matter of opinion then because if you add that, you have to verify each link-sounds like a big change to me. I'd be willing to bet that the editors don't check the references when you add them--just like I'm the only one fixing broken links when they pop up in my Watchlist-yes it's a big list. Just because no one else fixes those broken links doesn't mean they are not there. Most editors are either too busy, don't know how, or just don't like fixing broken links. They are just not the first item on most editor's todo lists. And, as those messages I wrote up explain, all of the reasons regarding the use of the tool this way are not just about its first use, but also the issues it can cause down the line. And I gave examples. Why do you care so much about this article I haven't even finished anyway? And it still falls under the domain of third party content. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No article on Wikipedia is finished. I don't follow your argument at all.  I checked the links provided here, 43/44 were spot on.  I'm not saying the tool is perfect, but neither is Wikipedia.  There's not much else to add here, I've notified Montanabw of the only dodgy archive, to save all that time, it's up to you both if you do something with that information.  Otherwise, I'm out of here as I have dozens more articles to look at in the next few days.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

OK gang, we've sorted this out across about three different talkpages, so I am going to make a call on this and suggest that now that we've fixed the archive links, for now we can leave them. I agree with the primary points of both sides, and I do think that reviewing for archived links that don't work is a really good idea with the burden on the person running the bot script. But I also know it's the article's "steward" who ultimately monitors quality control most of the time, so ... meh. I can't say that I'm going to be doing this myself on any kind of regular basis yet, but maybe over time, we shall see. Montanabw (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

World champion titles
It seems there are some differences in how to format PRCA world champion titles. When helping me bring Charmayne James to good article status, Atsme wrote a short paragraph for me on how to format them. See in my talk page archives. Search on "world barrel" to get to her explanation of two formats as used when she competed. She also linked an example in a real world article. I am linking her other example as shown in a PRCA article which also shows it done the way I had done in this article. However, I am not highly concerned that the bull riding and other event articles have to follow the way I had done it here in Harris and we did it in the barrel racing articles. I am just pointing this out to ask that if you do happen to edit any of the barrel racing articles (which are most of them mine), you leave the titles as they are done in those articles. I'm not going to change the formats in any of the articles for any other events though, including this one. To be clear, using World Champion Bull Rider in this article is fine rather than what I had. Thanks. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 23:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, Dawn. Thanks for letting me know. I actually did not know that Atsme had helped you out on how to describe world champion rodeo athletes. If it was a disturbance on my part, I apologize. I was just changing the description to how rodeo fans at large describe world champions.


 * Which is one of the reasons why I am not changing it in most of the events. Keep using it the way you have been using. There is no "rule" on the PRCA website regarding this. If I find one, then I'll let people know. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 17:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, Dawn.


 * Hi Uricarillo, I had just a couple thoughts tonight on this. More important than the order of the words is what words are included. The title of a PRCA world champion is the event name plus the words world champion, no further additions. The PRCA makes it very clear what their proper event names are in the Media Guide and the historical list of champions as well as in the World Standings. And I have used the same event names in the List of Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association Champions article.


 * For example:


 * 2018 Media Guide
 * https://prorodeo.cld.bz/2018-PRCA-Media-Guide-Records-Statistics/32/
 * Which starts on page 32/256:
 * * All-Around Cowboy
 * * Bareback Riding
 * * Steer Wrestling
 * * Team Roping
 * * Saddle Bronc Riding
 * * Tie-down Roping
 * * Bull Riding
 * * Steer Roping


 * And the historical listing
 * http://www.prorodeo.com/prorodeo/cowboys/world-champions-historical/
 * * All-Around
 * * Bareback Riding
 * * Steer Wrestling
 * * Team Roping
 * * Saddle Bronc Riding
 * * Tie-Down Roping
 * * Bull Riding
 * * Steer Roping


 * You might notice that the media guide includes cowboy in the all-around title. It is acceptable to use cowboy or not. Things in the future are headed towards not using it, so as to not be politically incorrect and offend genders.


 * For barrel racing, there is a media guide showing one example.
 * http://www.wpra.com/pdfs/MediaGuideBarrelRacing18_pF.pdf
 * Page 7
 * World Champion Barrel Racer


 * Now I just refer to the names in the list article I created, rather than look through the guides. You can see the event titles easily in the contents up front. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 02:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * p.s. Oh, yes and it's important to mention world championships and ProRodeo hall of fame inductions in the lead. And the Canadian hall of fame too. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 02:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)