Talk:Phil Lyne

May 2017

I have these halls of fame ready to go in a document in my computer and I can just search for them to add them. Two of the Texas halls don't give a year. I only get that if I can find it by searching the Internet. Sorry, I didn't know it was nominated for a DYK until after I added them. You can always revert if you didn't want them in here and to reformat them yet. I actually think it makes the subject look even more noteworthy. I would have found it interesting as a DYK that he didn't own a horse and he borrowed others horses to compete. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That last fact is very interesting. I added a sentence to the article with what I could find on the topic in sources. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, there is a bit about it in the Texas Rodeo Hall of Fame entry, which I can see is where you sourced your edit. There's also a bit about it in the Texas Trail of Fame entry. It's interesting as you say as it flies in the face of the long tradition of the importance of the partnership between the horse and the rider...There are some special horses in the hall of fame. It makes what Lyne did even more incredible. The source also says he had a two-horse trailer and that he didn't own any roping horses. So he must have had owned some horses for other purposes. So I shouldn't have said he didn't own a horse..and I wonder what he did use horses for....dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

World Championships

Howdy!

The subject of this article won five World Championships at the NFR, but the article did not totally reflect that. The championships won are supported by third-party sources in the article, which is totally fine but a few got confused with season titles. I checked the world championships against the PRCA sources. Naturally the PRCA is the absolute authority when it comes to saying what world championships were won in what events in what years. There are actually three sources you can use for verifying the championships from the PRCA. You can always use these PRCA sources for your citations as well or use secondary sources but the PRCA should at least be used to verify world titles as absolute sources.

• http://www.prorodeohalloffame.com/inductees/by-category/all-around/phil-lyne/ ProRodeo Hall of Fame (operated by PRCA) - World championships: 5 (all-around, 1971-72; tie-down roping, 1971-72; steer roping, 1990)
• http://www.prorodeo.com/prorodeo/cowboys/world-champions-historical/ PRCA World Champions (Historical)
• http://www.prorodeo.com/docs/default-source/media-guide/prorodeo-records-and-statistics.pdf?sfvrsn=02016 PRCA Media Guide (new one each year). This section of the guide is where you will find the most updated World Champions - for 2016 they are on pages 271, 275, and 276 and are in AA, TD, and SR for Lyne

The way I referred to the World Championship titles is one of a couple correct ways to refer to them. You can see Atsme's comments on this at my talk page for further clarification, under the second green paragraph at the below link. She has very high rodeo credentials and background.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dawnleelynn#To_mainspace

This article about rodeo royalty Ty Murray also shows the proper title style being used:

• http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/archives/2013/0718/the-rodeo-s-most-recent-hall-of-fame-class-honors/article_4de1dc22-ef35-11e2-ba46-001a4bcf6878.html

Happy Trails! I wish you could have seen the rodeo slack here at Cheyenne Frontier Days this summer. Wow! Got some great photos. And got to go behind the chutes. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Minor edits

You know, I never really expected nor pressured you to answer at a certain pace on the Roy Cooper article. It's a shame too, because we are basically the only two writing rodeo articles right now. I thought if I just accepted the blame anyway and apologized you would get over it, but it seems like you never really did. I was looking forward to working with you. You had many years on WP and I have learned what I can from reading your articles. I have over 25 years experience as a technical writer. I have accepted that you are going to rewrite everything I write. But if you are going to do that, then at least try to learn one thing from it. Write in the active voice, don't take what I've written in the active voice and change it to the passive voice. Like you just did with the sentence about Lyne having a qualified ride from the bull in 930 attempts. Use an active verb in place of had in that sentence. See what I just did with the sentence about Trevor Brazile as well. I flipped so it is is active now. Active voice is a writer's secret weapon. And on the other hand, you made some great edits that I have learned from just yesterday and today. Even though I passed V-61 through Earwig, there are still some things that are paraphrased a bit too closely to the source, so I will take another swipe through his article. And, adding the other sources like the halls of fame and the newspaper which I noticed today are things I should have done. Also, I can never get anyone to spend any time on helping me learn to document sources (create citations) properly. I use the Cite > Template on the Source Editor window. The web ones I do the most but those never look as good as other editors. And then the Vimeo one on V-61 one's page won't work at all, but if I navigate to it on the web, it's the same URL and it works fine. And the Life Magazine article - I can't get the citation to go to the right page (or any page). And your citations just look better. And I am just finding out now that the more experienced editors change the date format to American so I am trying to do that now too. I have another article with two Life magazine articles and I can't use them yet until I figure how to use the citation properly. Best wishes, dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize for anything, Dawn, and I don't harbor any ill will over any edits you made there or anywhere else. I just want to make sure that edits to articles on my watchlist don't introduce problems, such as the close paraphrasing. The issue I had with that sentence was that one of the sources you used for the V-61 article indicated that one cowboy rode the bull twice; if correct, this means that four cowboys had qualified rides, not five as the sentence said. Is this correct, or was the original sentence true? Please look into this if you get a chance. I wish I could help with your source formatting issues, but I don't use Visual Editor and wouldn't know how to change the formatting; perhaps someone at the help desk or Teahouse knows. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not out of the realm of possibility that rider stats are wrong on bull riding events of this era. In both articles Bodacious which I expanded and Oscar which I wrote, I had to write and say that statistics conflicted from various sources because they were not as well maintained back then. In fact, this PBR article comes straight out and says that about Bodacious: [1]. So I took a look at the sources I had for V-61 because I had several more than what I used because some were just mostly duplicate information. But it's pretty solid on this bull. Four bull riders and five rides. Quintana rode him twice. So when I went to write it in Lyne's article, I didn't think to copy the whole bit in because the other riders weren't relevant in his article and I just wanted to write about him being on of the riders who made a qualified ride. So, yes the sentence needed to be corrected, there wasn't five riders, but five rides and four riders. So, yes in future I will always remember that if you changed something it was because it was inaccurate (addition - or some other genuine reason for it). Hopefully, there will be no more paraphrasing issues.

As for the citations. No, I don't use the Visual Source Editor to make citations. I said above I use the Cite - Template on the Source Editor. But that's not really that relevant. I was more interested in what information was going into the fields. When I started I didn't know any better, I thought you were supposed to accept what came back from the page. Then I noticed people were adjusting, changing, adding to, etc, what came back from the page they were creating a citation from. And I still do magazines like guesswork. The cite template doesn't seem to have a selection for magazines. So that's the kind of thing I was talking about. Like when I added Honor sections to articles you had written, but then you changed some of the fields as to what was in them. And some editors remove the web site URL. Why wouldn't someone want that? And I see the work parameter but it's not available for me. Just stuff like that. And I just thought since you know how to get newspapers to show up to the right spot, you might know how to get google Life magazine articles to show up to the right page. But that's fine if you don't, like you said I can ask for help at your suggestions above. I just wanted you to understand what I was actually interested in. dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

ps I worked in software development R&D as a tech writer. I did lots of coding and scripting and documenting code. I understand everything in the Source Editor. I just sometimes use the VE when I am doing text only editing like copy editing so I can see the text w/o all the codes. It's also nice for entering text into tables. The VE inserts citations with far too many empty parameters that sometimes cause issues with the bots which is one reason I avoid it. I actually used search and replace scripts in AWB to strip out all of the empty parameters from all of the Rodeo articles awhile back. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)