Talk:Ray Byars

Date format

@CharlemagneJane: I'm not really seeing where you "corrected" the date in consistencies in the article. You tried to do a few, but for most part the inconsistencies remain. In fact, in some cases, you actually added more inconsistencies with your edits. Please take a look at MOS:DATETIES and determine whether you think it's more appropriate to use the American English format of "month-date-year" or the British English format of "day-month-year". Given that Byars is American, the former would seem preferable but you may have reasons for the latter. Once you figure out which style of date format you think should be used, then take a look at WP:BADDATE and MOS:DATEUNIFY because the date format should then be consistent throughout the article and it should also be one of the formats deemed acceptable by Wikipedia. If you're not sure about any thing written on the pages of DATETIES, BADDDATE or DATEUNIFY, feel free to ask below. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Just now seeing this post! I am taking all of your advice, but please be patient with me; I am handicapped and elderly. I am dilligently trying to learn this and to do the best I can in the short time I have been using Wikipedia and Wikimedia. I am an amateur geneologist and because most heritage societies require the "day-month-year" format, I prefer to continue using this format. I am sorry that I have not learned how to find the inconsistencies in the article as quickly as you have, but I did try to fix them. I will continue to try harder. Thanks again for your help and advice. CharlemagneJane (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Both the day-month-year and month-day-year formats are acceptable per MOS:DATEFORMAT and one isn't typically preferred over the other; however, in cases where the subject is strongly tied to one particular style of English (e.g. articles about American subjects and articles about British subjects), then one format may be preferred over the other for the reasons given in MOS:DATETIES. Since Byars is an American and since his Wikipedia notability doesn't appear to be related to anything international, the month-day-year format seems natural to use. Having said that, the day-month-year format would also be OK as long as it consistent throughout the article and the citations as explained in MOS:DATEUNIFY. In addition, there's no real need to abbreviate the names of months and in some cases like abbreviating "July" as "Jul" it seems downright silly. As for your health issues, I'm truly sorry to hear that, but I would suggest that you might want to consider keeping such things to yourself since they are mainly relevant to only you. For what it's worth, nobody is expecting you to do everything yourself; in fact, anyone can try and improve this article at anytime as long as they do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I only started this discussion since you removed the maintenance template I added for the date format and I wanted to try and find out why. Wikipedia also encourages users to try and defer to the date format chosen by the creator of an article as explained in MOS:DATEVAR unless there's a consensus to change the format to something else; the problem was there was no consistency in the format you were using so it was unclear as to what was the best way to try and clean things up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! CharlemagneJane (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia and most certainly not a genealogical website. Articles on American topics such as motorcyclists from Texas should use the conventional American date format, such as January 1, 2023. We are not experiencing a shortage of either ink or paper, so there is no need to abbreviate the names of months. It is "February" not "Feb". As for being elderly, I am 70, CharlemagneJane, and try to write in Wikipedia's established style. Cullen328 (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you but I have you beat in age. I never said or thought of Wikipedia as a geneological website. I only mentioned that I was accustomed to that formatting because I use it quite often; however, if it will improve the articles that I have contributed or any future articles that I may contribute, I will certainly take your advice. I will leave it up to you and the more experienced editors to clean up my previous two articles on Tommy Byars and Ray Byars and I will use your preferred format in my next article which is in the making. I do appreciate everyone's advice but it can be confusing at times. CharlemagneJane (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

CharlemagneJane, please clean up and improve your first two articles before beginning a third. A lot of editors have been spending a lot of time giving you advice. Please take that advice. When I first started writing new articles, I paid close attention to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and did not need excessive handholding from other editors. We are willing to help you, but if you forge ahead without taking to heart the advice you have been given, problems for you may be the result. Cullen328 (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I have always taken your advice and the advice of others with politeness and willingness to learn, but some of you contridict each other making it difficult to understand who's advice is the most reliable. CharlemagneJane (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I did what you advised and changed the date formats on Tommy Byars' article but now there are red errors. I don't know how to fix them and scared to do any more that might cause more problems. Can you fix them for me? I am really trying very hard to do this right. CharlemagneJane (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Marriage

@CharlemagneJane: How many times did Bryars marry? Your original version seemed to imply that he was married twice, but there's nothing about how that came about. His "first" wife seems to have died long after he did. Were they divorced? Unless your want to reader to think that Byars was married to two women at the same time and had children with both, some clarification about his marriages is probably needed.

In addition, Wikipedia articles typically don't use pre-nomatives like "Mr.", "Mrs.", "Ms." or "Miss", etc. when referring to persons previously mentioned by name as explained in MOS:SURNAME. In such cases, it's preferred to refer to someone by their given name. The question then is how is "Katy" spelled. Your original version had it spelled as "K-a-t-y", but the source you cite in support of the content about her has it spelled "K-a-t-i-e". It's possible that the source has the spelling wrong, but this is also something that should be sorted out if possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you; I will work on this. Ray Byars divorced his first wife but I have not found a good source for it but did have source where he remarried and had another son. I didn't mention his divorce because I have yet to find the source, but will try to find it ASAP. CharlemagneJane (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Not accidental removals

@CharlemagneJane: Please stop re-adding content that was removed by other editors and please start reading the edit summaries that they left when they removed the content. WP:NOTEVERYTHING that can be supported to a reliable source needs to be included in a Wikipedia article. The content I removed is fairly trivial in nature and isn't really relevant to the general Wikipedia reader. Obscure non-Wikipedia individuals don't really need to be mentioned by name per WP:NAMECHECKING and obscure content about people stealing from a store isn't really things that need to be in the article. If you feel this content should be included, then the WP:ONUS is upon you to start a discussion about it here on this talk page and see if you can establish a WP:CONSENSUS to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I was deleting the text when trying to add new source. I have newspaper articles to back it up. I was trying to add another source but when I did, the content was deleted, I guess we were working on it at the same time. CharlemagneJane (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

That's OK and multiple editors working on the same article can happen. Just try and look at the page history when you notice something such as this just to make sure something wasn't removed by someone else. If they've given a reason for the removal, then it's probably best to not simply WP:REVERT their edit. If no reason was given or it looks like someone just messing around, then you can probably get away with one revert. Just make sure to leave an edit summary explaining why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look for this next time. I really thought that I was deleting my own work and was getting frustrated with myself when I noticed your alert. Sorry! CharlemagneJane (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

"Friend of the community" citation cleanup

@Firefangledfeathers: Thank you for taking the time to check those Genealogy.com links. The "clipid" link you added works for me as long as I'm supposed to be seeing an article titled "Rod, Reel & Gun: Weather Improves Duck Hunting" in which Byars and one other man are mentioned by name in the last two paragraphs by the writer of the article as having recently died. It's not what I would significant coverage of Byars death by the paper, or an obituary per se written exclusively about Byars. I'm not sure the blurb supports the article content as written since it seems to be more of an editorial opinion by the writer saying nice things about someone who recently died, perhaps even a friend, who might have been well-known in certain circles. It would seem that someone who was more of a significant part of the local community (i.e. a "friend of the community") would warrant a much more detailed obituary by secondary sources. So, maybe that's not enough to support such a claim being written in Wikipedia's voice, and perhaps it should be more directly attributed to either the writer of the quasi-obituary or the paper itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that's the right source. Attribution makes sense to me. I've encountered at least one other issue with the source not quite supporting the article content. I'll try and fix the easy ones, but I'm mostly going to try and keep my head down and stay focused on clipping and fixing up the citations. Someone following up on verifying the content would be appreciated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry that I have not been able to respond to this talk page for Ray Byars lately due to personal health issues, but I want to thank everyone for your expertice in cleaning up this article for me. I was working on it diligently until the first of the year when everything came to a halt. Hope to be able to participate more regularly in a few weeks! CharlemagneJane (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your health issues CJ. I'm hopeful that the new clip urls will persist, and there are archive.org backups available if needed. I doubt there will be any changes that won't be reviewable by you when you're ready. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)