Talk:Little Yellow Jacket

Untitled
I have categorized this article and also have linked it to some other sites. Also to address notibility, I think that the bull is worthy due to his history, and just as Bodacious has his own page I believe Little Yellow Jacket should also. Kirksch 21:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Tone
I have tagged this article with tone due to words such as "astonishing" and "hopefully;" in general, it reads more like a magazine article (or perhaps press release) than an encyclopedia. Matchups (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Further notability notes
To further address notability, this bull is notable because he is in the North Dakota Cowboy Hall of Fame, the first animal to be inducted. He was the first bull to win the PBR World Champion Bull title 3 times which he did in a row. And then in 2011, he received the PBR Brand of Honor, which is pretty much the PBR's equivalent of a Hall of Fame. Dawnleelynn (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Article Expansion Project
I started engaging in a major expansion of this article a couple days ago. It just occurred to me to document that in the talk page. That way, editors can avoid re-editing loops until the project is done. I will just note in it when I have finished. On the other hand, though, I would be happy to consider any constructive suggestions along the way, especially considering this is my first major article expansion. I have lots of source since this bull is considered to be one of the greatest bucking bulls ever. I am also planning to solve the lack of sufficient citation situation. Okay, that's it, here I go. Dawnleelynn (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just added a good deal of content again today. I have made sure that every fact has a citation, whether I wrote it or not. Which means I got to remove the template, yay! I feel pretty sure that I am done adding any more major content for this expansion project. I will be spending the next few days just doing some editing. Mostly copy editing, and a little bit of substantive editing. I may drop a small bit of content in only if I find I missed something along the way. Also, the career section needs some organizing in terms of order of facts and paragraphs to make the information more chronological and have a smooth transition from beginning to end. Dawnleelynn (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I know this took a long time but I consider this project complete, I even forgot to add a note in here to say so. dawnleelynn (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Photos
It would be cool to illustrate this article, though on Wikipedia, photos are always a challenge because the content is supposed to be under a free license (creative commons or public domain). But, at least for the deceased (animals and people) we can use copyrighted images with a fair use rationale if we can't find stuff that's got a free license. For living individuals, we can't go fair use because in theory a free image can still be taken (for example, the photo at Ron Turcotte). So if you find an image of this bull online, pop the URL here and ping me, I'll demonstrate how to do a fair use upload. (Later, I can also walk you through adding free licensed images to commons if you want to try that.) Montanabw (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I totally agree and I was going to tell you about my secret weapon but I hadn't asked her yet. She's still traveling after attending the PBR World Finals. Yesterday, she was up at Chad Berger's ranch in North Dakota. Chad is the son of Joe Berger who owned Little Yellow Jacket. Joe's retired, so Chad's the man now, running Chad Berger Bucking Bulls. I met Susan on Twitter and she's a small time contractor. She's also a superb photographer. She used to write a blog of the PBR events with lots of pictures. She knows lots of the contractors. Susan also just got to see Bushwacker up close and in person as his owner brought Bushwacker up to Vegas for his Brand of Honor ceremony. They had some bulls at a bull housing tour. I'm sure she got lots of pictures. I am going to ask her if she will 1) share her pics 2) see if contractors will share theirs. And, also I follow most of them on social media myself so I can ask them myself if need be, many of the contractors answer questions about the bulls. Talking to contractors may be the only we can document some of the older bulls anyway, especially the older ones in the ProRodeo Hall of Fame like Tornado and Oscar, and V-61 in the Bull Riding Hall of Fame. And I use Pinterest so I have plenty of images of the bulls, both old school and modern. Dawnleelynn (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I talked with my contractor friend. She is willing to share pictures but only if her name is on them with a watermark. She's been burned a couple times. Anyway, what does Wikipedia do in that situation, yay or nay? She really only has photographs on modern bulls, the ones back in the day are before her time of taking photos, including LYJ. She has some pictures on modern bulls who are all Brand of Honor bulls who are notable now, like Bushwacker & Chicken on a Chain. For the ProRodeo Hall of Fame bulls, it will be more difficult to make contacts with owners of those 7 bulls, all of the bulls are deceased, some of the owners are deceased as well, and some are not. For Red Rock, I have the owner's Facebook page. I also know who LYJ's owners are. Dawnleelynn (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's complicated. In short, most images on Wikimedia foundation projects (including Wikipedia) have to be free to be used by anyone for (almost) anything.  There are two ways to provide photos for wikipedia.  One is to upload directly to wikipedia, which means the image can only be used here and not on another language wiki or something.  The main images we do this with are fair use images -- which for us pretty much means copyrighted images of deceased animals (see, e.g. Merry Go Boy or Go Man Go. ) In those situations, we can pretty much just use one image and jump through special hoops to explain all that. The other, main repository for images is wikimedia commons, (commons.wikimedia.org), which is the universal spot for all wikimedia languages and projects.  HOWEVER, anything uploaded there has to be either released to public domain or released with a free "copyleft" license (Creative Commons 4.0 at the moment) that allows other people to use it commercially, alter it, create derivative works from it and so on -- the caveat being that the creator still keeps attribution and credit for being the creator of the image. Many if not most professional photographers don't want to do this with their best images or ones they hope to sell.  Sometimes, pro photographers might upload "cull" images that they can't sell for various reasons, or upload a lower-quality version of an older image that is not apt to be sold much any more and the image is usually uploaded at a resolution that looks fine on a screen but can't be blown up into an art print on someone's wall without major loss of quality.  Does that make sense?


 * So, I guess the short answer is, "kind of." All that said, there ARE some images on commons with watermarks, (example: File:2009 Egyptian event (3656226333).jpg) though they are discouraged and some folks there go through and remove them when the see them.  I am going to ping, who is also a pro photographer and uploads some images for use here.  She may be able to give you additional insights -- (her image is the lead for Arabian horse -- notice the horse still has on leg wraps, it was a test shot (or maybe an "ooops!")  ;) )


 * Sometimes you can get free pics off Flickr; like at I Am Jose, somebody had gone to that show during one of the years he was World Grand Champion and taken a couple of pictures that are not great but are OK, and they released them under free license. We uploaded them to Commons and used them in a couple of places. The more spectators an event draws, the better the chance of pics... White Arabian Filly  Neigh 20:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all that great input guys... I do have an example of a picture that's out there for Red Rock. Now, the bull is deceased, but his owners are quite alive. The professional photographer who took several photographers of the bull and Lane Frost during the Challenge of the Champions managed to put her name across the photographs. However, the photographs are also out there without her name on them too. Here is one with her name on it of just Red Rock. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/7d/d7/ce/7dd7cefcba2b768953cdf87dee916bcc.jpg. Is Sue trying to keep people from using her photos by putting her name on them like that? I have all of them on Pinterest. I have over 700 pictures of rodeo and PBR on Pinterest. For Skoal Pacific Bell, I have around 2 or 3, I think. He and his owner are both deceased. Dawnleelynn (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm not really sure what I am supposed to tell my friend about her pics. Lot of info and I guess I am confused about the watermarks... I worked on Little Yellow Jacket in my sandbox a bunch today. I have some more to do tomorrow and then I really hope to do a good copy edit and finish it for awhile. Perhaps turn it over for other eyes to take a look at - when time permits, no deadline of course. And obviously add photos, I think they will really look good. LYJ is quite a handsome fella. Ok logging off for tonight. Happy to do something about Brand of Honor when you let me know what you think. Dawnleelynn (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry I haven't gotten back to you, was kind of busy off-wiki and not checking my watchlist. What I would say is this:  A photo released under a free license for use on wikipedia projects has to be able to be used commercially by other people, and can even  be altered from its original format. A photographer CAN keep a requirement that they be given attribution and require that the image itself cannot be copyrighted by someone else (Getty Images tried that once, and got smacked).  But that's it.  So for living animals, a free license or an image released to the public domain are the only two ways an image of them can be used.  For deceased animals, an image can be used, regardless of copyright status, under very limited "fair use" conditions (example, Secretariat (horse)).  So, if your friend doesn't want watermarks removed, she still could release them under a free license (such as the examples I gave you of the watermarked images on commons), but she couldn't stop someone else from removing the watermark -- she could only demand that a future use said "original image by _______" as an attribution.  If you look at articles such as Frosted (horse), or Arrogate, or Beholder (horse), you see that all the images there were taken by someone who was a the track as a spectator.  The pros have no interest in posting their work to WIkipedia or to Wikimedia commons because they lose control over it that way.  Does that make sense?   Montanabw (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think I understand. Anyway, Little Yellow Jacket is almost done. I'm going to get my fanny moving on it and do the last edit. Then there's the photos. I either need to contact the owner or we should grab some from my Pinterest account. The picture in the Pinterest account is still linked to the source page. Which means I can give you a link, you don't have to have a Pinterest account to do it. (Although you could, and I could even have a "secret" board that only we could access.) I have a weird feeling if we ask the owner and he says no, then he will check the article and watch to see what photos we use on it? Does that make sense? We can't get photos from my friend on any deceased bulls. And, like I said before, she only has 3 bulls that we can use, and I am pretty sure that avenue is not going to work out anyway, based on the information in your last response. And it's really not helpful as she has action of Bushwacker but no profile shots. And then for Bones and Chicken on a Chain, she only has profiles. Dawnleelynn (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Per my message, I finished going over this article a few days ago. I await your advice regarding the photos re what I said in that message. As per taking a look at it, like I always say that's per your time table, no need to feel any pressure or give any reasons as to why it might take you a bit to do. The beauty of wikipedia, no deadlines except those you make. :) I've plenty else to do in the meantime. Dawnleelynn (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have found these URLs where we can possibly take 1-2 photographs of LJ according to fair use of a deceased entity, aka, a bull:


 * https://www.northdakotacowboy.com/?id=67&form_data_id=132 The North Dakota Cowboy Hall of Fame. He's been ridden by Chris Shivers, one of his most notable riders.


 * http://www.teaguebuckingbulls.com/lyj2003.htm After his retirement, his part owner Tom Teague acquired full ownership for his last five years until his death. This photograph is from Tom Teague Bucking Bulls web site. Each picture URL is dated with the year he won a World Champion Bucking Bull title.


 * http://www.teaguebuckingbulls.com/lyj2004.htm Another one from Tom Teague Bucking Bulls.


 * http://www.teaguebuckingbulls.com/lyj2002.htm Another one from Tom Teague Bucking Bulls. But I don't prefer this one as much.


 * http://www.teaguebuckingbulls.com/ This picture is a really great picture. But it's on the home page and is part of a memorial to the bull, so I am loathe to use it.


 * http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=115652467 Find a Grave is using the Teague Bucking Bulls 2003 picture on its website with no repercussions.


 * http://www.pbr.com/en/news/press-releases/2011/9/pbr-mourns-loss-of-legendary-little-yellow-jacket.aspx Find a Grave ia also using this picture from the PBR with no repercussions.

dawnleelynn (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I looked through these pictures over and over. I really think the one at The North Dakota Cowboy Hall of Fame is the best looking one and fits the frame perfectly unlike most of the rest. The only other one that is a great picture is one I'm not comfortable using as his owner Tom Teague is using it for a memorial page on his website. So, I'm uploading the one at the hall of fame tonight and you can take a look at it later if you like. Fair use for one picture of a deceased entity. It's something I should have just gone ahead and done awhile ago. I'm thinking. dawnleelynn (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I just got a notice on the graphics file I used for this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Little_Yellow_Jacket_being_ridden_by_Chris_Shivers.jpg Do I need to start doing some resizing of these fair use images before I upload them to avoid this from happening on a regular basis? I think all of the images I've used recently are starting to be looked at. This is the second one, now, but it's a different message of sorts than Dillinger was. dawnleelynn (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it depends on how graphics savvy you are, versus time, versus how annoyed you are by tags. It is a bot that does most of these, so it's not like you are being bad or anything!  I personally tend to just upload the image and let the bot scold me because many times these images I find are already pretty low-res.  Not worth my time to import the image into my own editing software, check the resolution, downsize... blah.  I'd rather create content.  If the bot ever told me I only had three strikes or something, then I'd reform my slothful ways... but until then, I just proceed until apprehended!   Montanabw (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like now the bot made a reduced image in there for us. And it wants us to delete the original image on January 28, 2017. If the bot wants to do the resizing for me, I have no problem with that. It's weird how it picks a specific date for the deletion of the original image, however. Don't know we can't just go ahead and delete it, but whatever. dawnleelynn (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Mr. Bot will do that too. If we ignore him for a few more days it should happen automatically.  Unless Mr. Bot has a programming glitch or requires a human to help.  I'd say give it 10 days and then see what happened.  Only humans with admin credentials can delete stuff manually and they do get backlogged.  I think as long as that template remains, the bot will do it, though.   Montanabw (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, it says administrators, please delete this file if blah blah blah... I can't see where I can delete myself anyway.. hahah... So, the bot will do it...that's fine with me too. dawnleelynn (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)