User talk:sroc/Archive 2

Briggs (rapper)

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Briggs (rapper), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://allaussiehiphop.com/tag/kelakovski/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Briggs

Hi. The article has actually been deleted twice, once in 2008 and once in 2010. The first article read:

Anthony Brigano, (born January 30, 1983), better known as Briggs is an American rapper from Utica, New York.

The second did not have any content at all.

I should warn you, however, that references to Facebook and similar sites are not considered acceptable as reliable third-party references and you should remove such sites from your list of references. Deb (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Deb. Appreciate your prompt response. I'm hoping to expand on the new article and provide better sources, and, of course, I hope that other Wikipedians will contribute to it as well. —sroc (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Briggs (rapper)

Hello! Your submission of Briggs (rapper) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ¿3family6 _contribs 14:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please review the sources you have provided to ensure thay comply exactly with our policies for WP:RS:Reliable sources, removing all those that are not, such as blogs, social media sites, YouTube, etc, and the content that they support if other reliable sources are not available. It is also possible that when these items are removed, the subject will no longer meet our criteria for musicians at WP:BAND. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will respond on the article's talk page to assist others to contribute. —sroc (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Briggs (rapper)

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The Half Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		Sending this over to you for our collaborative efforts on the Briggs page—nice one sroc! Soulparadox (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hunter (rapper), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Linking at Margaret Thatcher

As one of the lead authors who took this to GA status, I am respectfully requesting that you desist from edit-warring to include extra links contrary to WP:OVERLINK. Please instead join the discussion at talk. Thank you. --John (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have read WP:OVERLINK and added my comments at Talk:Margaret Thatcher. I do not wish to edit-war, but I am concerned that the article which deals with the reactions to her death is being hidden away where the casual reader is unlikely to find it, even when reading a precis on that very subject. —sroc (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"Hip hop" or "hip-hop"

Which is the correct spelling sroc, as I am unsure?--Soulparadox (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a "correct spelling"? Wikipedia calls it hip hop, as in hip hop music. Sadly, Google is no determiner as it treats "hip hop" and "hip-hop" synonymously. I tend to write "hip-hop" because it's what I'm used to, but perhaps I should prefer "hip hop" on Wikipedia for consistency. Why do you ask? —sroc (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster seems to prefer "hip-hop".[1]

According to Mike Rayzman:

When referring to it as a music genre the accepted spelling according to AP style is hip-hop but there are times (though not in journalism or scholarly writing) when someone is making the distinction between hip-hop as a music genre or a culture that Hip Hop is used to describe the latter.[2]

Then there's this from Whitney Young:

It reflected an evolution of African-American fashion from the gritty urban aesthetics of hip-hop, (with the hyphen) and a hybrid form of the lighter, more casual skater/surfer styles of California to the traditional African attire: hip hop without the hyphen.[3]

—sroc (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, see this from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Usage (emphasis added):

Hip hop music is a music genre. The act of rapping is performed by rappers. When referring to a genre, "hip hop" should be used, except in circumstances such as "gangsta rap". The word "hip hop" is, like most music genres, not capitalized; it is also not hyphenated.

So there. —sroc (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I simply wanted to know so that I could be consistent and correct in my Wikipedia contributions.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Geez, I went on and on a bit though before I found that bit! And I'll have to keep that in mind for my own contributions too. —sroc (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

D.B. Cooper

Hello-- Since there is no point in edit warring over commas, let me explain why I think it was correct the way it was; if I'm wrong, please disabuse me. Here is the relevant portion of the sentence as it is now: ...hijacked a Boeing 727 aircraft in the airspace between Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington, on November 24, 1971... Already, you can see that there are too many commas; but if you remove the state names, it looks like this: ...hijacked a Boeing 727 aircraft in the airspace between Portland, and Seattle, on November 24, 1971... In this form it's even more obvious that those commas don't belong there. On top of that, WP:COMMA says, "Modern practice is against excessive use of commas; there are usually ways to simplify a sentence so that fewer are needed." This would be one of those ways, n'est-ce pas? Again, this is admittedly a quibble, but I really think it was correct the way it was. Best, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree. The commas are necessary because the state names are parenthetical; that is, the commas function as brackets. The sentence reads as the equivalent of: ...hijacked a Boeing 727 aircraft in the airspace between Portland (Oregon) and Seattle (Washington) on November 24, 1971... We use commas instead of brackets in ordinary prose, but the commas are still required on both sides. If you take out the state names, the parenthetical commas are not needed at all; thus: ...hijacked a Boeing 727 aircraft in the airspace between Portland and Seattle on November 24, 1971...

These are the same considerations that apply to years in dates expressed in m-d-y format: ...on November 24, 1971, extorted $200,000... See WP:DATEFORMAT:

Wikipedia does not insert a comma between month and year, nor does it insert a full stop after the day (10 June 1921); however, when using the mdy format, a comma is required between day and year. When a date in mdy format appears in the middle of text, include a comma after the year (The weather on September 11, 2001, was clear and warm).

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a clear WP policy on the use of commas after state names, but you can see in the article Comma#In geographical names (citations omitted):

Additionally, most style manuals, including The Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Stylebook, recommend that the second element be treated as a parenthetical, requiring a second comma after: "The plane landed in Kampala, Uganda, that evening."

—sroc (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I would submit that clarity trumps "style", and the less commas the better for the sake of clarity. Most WP articles don't do it that way, and I don't see anything in MOS mandating any such thing. I'll submit it for consensus on the talk page if you wish, but current practice favors less commas, not more. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the broad comment that "less commas" equates to "clarity". The very reason for having a comma after the state is for clarity. Consider this example: They travelled to Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, to St. George's, Grenada. Without the comma after "Trinidad and Tobago", this would be more confusing. I also dispute your claim that "Most WP articles don't do it that way." I would like to see a clear WP policy on this one way or the other though. If this is raised anywhere, I think it should be in the WP:MOS somewhere, not this one particular article. —sroc (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, in that one example, but we don't have that situation here. I'm not going to go through every article, but in a random sampling I haven't seen any other examples of this. I too would like to see a clear policy on it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the D. B. Cooper article already had examples of this before my intervention, it was just inconsistent. For example:

...about 13 miles (21 km) east of Castle Rock, Washington, well north of Lake Merwin but within the basic path of Flight 305.

...taught military law at Weber State University in Ogden, Utah, and hosted a radio talk show...

—sroc (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I just checked with a grammarian colleague, and he sides with you -- so I guess I have no leg to stand on for the moment.  :-) But it would be nice to have a clear policy to follow. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally I agree with DoctorJoeE that we have too many commas, although I do see sroc's point in some cases. What I think we really need is a clear policy from Wikipedia. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it would be nice to have a clear policy on this — ideally one that reconciles with the "minimise commas" policy! —sroc (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on establishing a policy at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Commas in geographical names, noting DoctorJoeE's views. Please feel free to add your thoughts there. And thanks for bringing this up — wherever it lands, I enjoy these kinds of discussions. —sroc (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Me, too. RE: the two examples you added above: different situations -- the commas after "Washington" and "Utah" would be there whether the states' names were there or not, for other reasons. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you started a separate discussion elsewhere? May I ask where? No sense having two separate discussions on the same issue. —sroc (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that in response to "Me, too." On reflection, perhaps you meant that you enjoy these discussions, too. In any case, I hope I haven't offended you by maintaining my views and I encourage you to share your thoughts on the other talk page if you wish so that we can build a consensus one way or the other. —sroc (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I meant by "me, too". Thanks for getting the ball rolling at MOS talk. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No offense taken. Looking forward to a healthy discussion. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sroc...I left a final message at the MOS talkpage and concur with your proposed changes to the guideline. While it does look like comma overkill, the various collegiate MOS support your assertions. In news media and similar print, a comma after a parenthetical isn't mandatory if it is followed by a coordinating conjunction, but they do that to conserve space and news print isn't what we want to achieve on Wikipedia. Sorry if I came across as obstinate.--MONGO 13:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Mongo. Thanks for the comment. No worries. I actually like about Wikipedia when these kinds of exchanges take place where people can express their views and make their points in a civil (if sometimes heated) way in order to teach, learn and reach consensus. Sorry if my explanations weren't as clear from the outset as they could have been to avoid the confusion between serial commas and parenthetical commas. I haven't particularly noticed news media omitting the parenthetical comma, but I know it does get overlooked and I felt someone had to fight for the little guy! Hope I didn't come across as argumentative either — I know I can go on! I'm always happy to be shown wrong though. Thanks for keeping an open mind. —sroc (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have noticed one awkward thing in news media. Whenever they refer to the same company, they usually try to refer to it in different ways and almost invariably refer to Apple around the fifth paragraph as "The Cupertino, California, tech company…" or "…Cupertino, California-based Apple.". I'm not sure which is more clumsy, but I always think the sentence should be re-cast (e.g., "…Apple headquarters in Cupertino, California.") to avoid the issue. —sroc (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

One would think that, by now, they could simply leave it out. Most interested people know by now where Apple's HQ is located; those who don't can look it up. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite. For whatever reason, they seem to avoid just repeating "Apple" and instead have to bring out their "fun fact" every time! —sroc (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC re WP:LQ: various irregularities

Sroc, please review the responses to your concerns, comments and questions on the MOS talk page. I would like to address and resolve these issues as quickly as possible, with your agreement, of course. Thanks, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC

Yes, I made up WP:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC. So what? It exists. Somebody else made up WP:BRD - that doesn't mean we can't link to it.

WP:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC is a term with a clear definition. What's wrong with that? By using it, there is no ambiguity about intended meaning. By linking to directly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which, as you know, is unclear about whether it applies in the obvious case (the term refers to only one topic), there is ambiguity. --B2C 00:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to form consensus. I disagree with your change, hence there is no consensus, so I reverted per WP:BRD. I sympathise with your aims, but the solution is not to supplant established guidelines formed over time through consensus with your own created overnight, particularly when there are already conflicting views on your proposals. It requires further discussion to form consensus. —sroc 💬 00:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"WP:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC" is also a mouthful for an "abbreviation". We can do better. Besides, I disagree in principle with having two separate guidelines for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC which cover overlapping ground. —sroc 💬 00:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not following. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a guideline (a section of a guideline). WP:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC is not a guideline. It's an essay that refers to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and describes the concept of being an only use of a term. Referencing it in the text of USPLACE is effectively no different that saying what it says in the text of USPLACE. Do you disagree with what it says?

This is not supplanting established guidelines. The name PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC itself clearly refers to PRIMARYTOPIC, and the content references it directly.

To add this meaning directly to PRIMARYTOPIC, I agree we need consensus. But that's a separate issue. If that succeeds, then there will be no need for PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC. But that's not where we are today.

To create WP:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC does not require consensus. Referencing it in a guideline does, and I assumed no one would object. But you did. I'm asking why... that's how we develop consensus, by discussing it. --B2C 00:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a compromise approach. It provides a convenient way to refer to the concept of primary topic plus topics referred to by only one term without actually changing PRIMARYTOPIC to clearly mean that. --B2C 00:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that you edited Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which is a guideline, to replace a reference to "WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" to "WP:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC" without consensus, and I disagreed and so reverted the change. You need to discuss controversial changes to guidelines to establish consensus before implementing them. The change clearly is controversial, not only because there are already heated discussions on it at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#What is the primary topic for "Oprah Winfrey"? for example, but also because at least one editor (namely, me) disagrees with it. —sroc 💬 03:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

How can something that doesn't change meaning one iota be controversial? Whatever, it's not worth fighting for this. I was just trying to keep it clear and more concise. --B2C 22:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hyjak N Torcha may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 2006, Hyjak released a mixtape, ''Shady Characters'' featuring Torcha, Kye, Bliss N Eso and others).<ref>[http://nla.gov.au/anbd.bib-an42350001 National Library of Australia - ''Shady Characters'']</

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

on those commas

Your support for a less awkward name need not interfere with having your vote counted on the main question of whether one or two commas is most appropriate in such constructs. Dicklyon (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed this at first: "Feel free to also support this option, whether or not you have registered one way or the other on the main question." —sroc 💬 23:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of this?

What are your thoughts on this closure? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@GabeMc: Thanks for the heads-up. I have been busy elsewhere. It seems the discussion is kicking on well without me, so I don't intend to intervene further at this point. —sroc 💬 11:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Commas

I have amended the proposal to make it only apply to titles and not sentences within an article. You mentioned adding something else to the proposal. If you will specifically tell me exactly what you mean (I can be a little slow sometimes), I will consider adding it to the proposal before too many editors comment. United States Man (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your proposal. As I mentioned in my reply at the RfC, I still wouldn't support it, but I don't want to dictate what you propose.

I would say that I think it would be more reasonable to suggest that the rule be exempted in cases where the date or place is used as an adjective, e.g.:

• July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike
• Graniteville, South Carolina train crash

Some may be more inclined to make an exemption in such cases where the date or place is used as an adjective (i.e., modifying nouns, such as airstrike or train crash), which seems to be in line with Garner's Modern American Usage cited by Dohn joe. Personally, I still disagree with this style, although I may be more willing to accept it if it were only applied in article titles. Although I acknowledge that the second comma makes for an awkward construction, my preference is to re-phrase such cases, e.g.:

• airstrike in Baghdad on July 12, 2007
• train crash in Graniteville, South Carolina

That's just me. Others such as Agnosticaphid, Arthur Rubin, Dicklyon, Frungi, HandsomeFella, LtPowers and Stfg all supported the second comma in the earlier discussion you mentioned regarding Rochester and I'd be interested to see their views on your proposal, too. —sroc 💬 16:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I just saw the second note that you added, but it now looks like you're looking to make two separate exemptions to the general rule. If I understand your proposal correctly:

• General rule: include a comma after the year in m–d–y dates (e.g., On November 24, 1971, Cooper hijacked a Boeing 727 aircraft.)
• General rule: include a comma after the state/country (e.g., The plane off from Portland, Oregon, and was headed east.)
• Exception: as an adjective (e.g., July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike or Graniteville, South Carolina train crash)
• Exception: in titles (I can't think of any examples that aren't adjectives)

Is this correct? Do you mean to exempt the last comma in adjectives in the body of article or only in titles? —sroc 💬 17:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to say that the adjectives only apply to titles and not sentences within an article. Do you mind if I use this above "list" to better demonstrate what I mean in the RfC? United States Man (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind if you use my examples, but I'm still trying to understand your proposal — not that I would support it in any case, but it seems that the proposal is either poorly thought through or poorly expressed. The way that you have written in your second comment, in relation to the use of dates or places as adjectives, "I propose that this also be made optional", the "also" implies that you would also propose that the comma would be omitted from the title in other cases (e.g., Journey from Graniteville, South Carolina to Austin, Texas instead of Journey from Graniteville, South Carolina, to Austin, Texas) — is this what you meant? If this is what you meant, then your second note is redundant because you mean to exclude the second comma from titles whether they are used after adjectives or not ; if you meant that your proposal only applies to adjectives in titles, then this is unclear from what you wrote. —sroc 💬 22:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what I did wrong. When I did that earlier I was watching NASCAR and football and really wasn't paying attention. I will fix it (again). If I can't get it this time... United States Man (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)