This user repairs links to disambiguation pages
This user is a WikiGnome

User:Vmavanti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Help[edit]

Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Sources for album information[edit]

Wikipedia discographies need accurate release dates. These are more difficult to find than recording dates, at least in when it comes to jazz. Here are some possible sources for release dates and other information about the album.

  • The album itself
  • The musician's official web site
  • The record label's web site
  • Billboard magazine or web site
  • DownBeat magazine or web site
  • JazzTimes magazine or web site
  • A book, such as a biography, about the subject
  • A book about the record label
  • AllMusic.com

Introduction[edit]

A person smart enough to use a computer is smart enough to write a grammatical sentence and document it correctly.

Jazz and notability[edit]

Determining who is a jazz musician isn't that difficult in most cases. The big names come easily to mind. But this subject occasionally evokes strong feelings. First, I'll give some criteria to consider. After that, I'll suggest reasons why this can be a complicated topic.

Criteria[edit]

  • Has the musician appeared in reliable jazz sources, such as magazines, web sites, and radio stations?
  • Has the musician's albums been called jazz by reliable jazz sources?
  • Has their work been seriously reviewed by jazz critics?
  • How do jazz critics define them?
  • How do they define themselves?
  • Have they been educated in jazz?
  • Have they recorded for jazz record labels?
  • Do they work often with other jazz musicians?
  • Is their contribution to jazz substantial?

These questions are aimed at defining a body of work. I try to find representative characteristics rather than exceptions. Barbara Streisand at the beginning of her career sang standards. But most of her career has been spent in pop, rock, musicals, and so on. Diana Ross portrayed Billie Holiday in the movie Lady Sing the Blues. But most of her career has been in pop, rock, and R&B. So I don't consider them jazz singers, though of course they are talented, successful, and quite capable of singing jazz.

Wikipedia's purpose isn't to promote or advertise. It isn't here to sell records or to get attention to musicians you think deserve more attention. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, a retail store, or a music magazine. It's not TMZ or American Idol. You may want to promote, but my purpose as an editor is to be impartial, disinterested, unbiased. Wikipedia isn't the place for cheerleading. It's an encyclopedia. I don't know if you grew up with encyclopedias, such as those heavy black Britannica volumes with the thin pages and small type. Probably not. Most people thought they were boring. They never used the word "currently."

Wikipedia documentation has a rule called notability. Generally the person has to have made some kind of substantial contribution, accomplished something endurable, historical speaking. For notability regarding music, see here. Don't bother showing me articles that break Wikipedia's rules. I already know there are plenty. Editors have trouble keeping up with the quantity of information submitted. From the documentation:

"On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary."

Why this can be complicated[edit]

When I say something is "not jazz", that is not a moral judgment or a value judgment. It's not personal. It's not a put-down. But some people see it that way. How can this be?

Although jazz started in New Orleans brothels, it has been given a reverence in our time previously reserved for classical music. Jazz has been elevated. Concerts are performed in formal attire in art museums and symphony halls. In a somber tone there is much talk of history, heritage, identity, politics. College and graduate degrees are given in jazz. Academic journals view jazz through lenses of critical theories. Mentioning jazz on one's resume can bring financial reward, social status, and the respect of others. Using the word raises one's brow and the brow of others. Beethoven, Shakespeare...jazz. Step onto the red carpet, Your Highness.

For better or worse, this is the situation. Consequently, there are all kinds of people who are not jazz musicians but who claim to be because attaching to jazz is means of elevation. It means you're more serious, more talented. It means you're better. It also means the reverse: to say something is "not jazz" is taken as an insult. Wynton Marsalis has had a lot to do with this. From the time he started making his opinions public in the 1980s, he has always referred to jazz as an "art" and jazz musicians as "artists". We can debate his opinion, just as we can debate whether any musician ought to be called an artist or whether music is an art. I'm not saying all music is equal. I believe there is such a thing as good music and bad music, and that the world would be better off without some genres. But as an editor for Wikipedia I have to remain impartial, disinterested, detached, moderate. Music is neither totally objective nor totally subjective. It fluctuates between those two poles. Having strong feelings about something isn't enough. As an editor, I have to look past people's feelings toward the facts, beyond all interests, causes, movements.

Commentary about jazz is crowded with references to the mingling of genres. Musicians balk at limits, wanting to explore other genres and then incorporate them into their work. Critics encourage them. From the beginning, jazz took what it wanted, and over the years the parasitism has accelerated. Hybrid forms have been created: jazz rock, jazz fusion, acid jazz, jazz rap. Jazz has always been flexible. Jazz is like Silly Putty. Slap the putty onto the newspaper and press it down on someone's face. Pull up the putty and you have an impression of the face. Now stretch the putty. You can still make out the face, but when you stretch it too far, it's unrecognizable. Who is it? It may not even look like a face anymore. It has no definition. It no longer has any defining characteristics. But jazz does have defining characteristics. If you stretch it too far, you have to give it a different name. So what?

One result of all of this cross-pollination is that some music is said to be "influenced by jazz". That may but true, but "influenced by jazz" has somehow magically become equal to jazz. A song that is one or ten or twenty percent jazz has become all jazz. The part becomes the whole. It's a kind of imperiousness. If you sang "'Round Midnight" on American Idol, suddenly you're a jazz singer. If you played "Satin Doll" on the tuba when you were ten years old, you're a jazz musician. If a garage band has a saxophone, it's a jazz band. If you take this too far, then everything is jazz, and therefore nothing is jazz.

Music and genres have to be defined. They are defined all the time. They may as well be defined by someone who knows what they're doing. Skimpy knowledge of jazz often leads to false characterization of who is a jazz musician.

Defining genres is a practical matter that helps us organize information. It's a guide, a flashlight in the dark, a torch in the jungle. Music stores are almost gone, but if I owned a music store, and I wanted to find a jazz album, where would I go? Most music that people listen today is pop or rock. Verse-chorus form, a few basic chords, and three or four minutes in length. That holds true for rap, R&B, and country. Jazz and classical are different, but they have something like a one percent market share. There are going to be debates about what is jazz and what isn't when the genre itself resists definition and insists on being in flux. Nevertheless, Wikipedia bases judgments on what the sources say, even if the sources are wrong.

Easiest way to enter a citation[edit]

If you got information from a web site, you need to enter a citation to document that.

  • Click "Edit Source" at the top of the page you want to work on.
  • In the edit box, click "Cite" on the right end of toolbar
  • A drop-down menu will appear on the left marked "Templates"
  • Click "Templates", scroll down and select "Cite web"
  • A box will pop open marked "Web Citation"
  • Be sure to fill in the date at "Access Date". Clicking the calendar icon fills in today's date.
  • Copy the URL of article at the web site you are using
  • Paste the URL into the blank box marked "URL"
  • Click the magnifying glass.
  • Wait a minute. Some of the boxes will fill in automatically.
  • If some of the boxes are blank, you have to enter them manually.
  • Dates are important.
  • So is the first and last name of the author of the article.
  • If there is more than one author, click the "green plus sign" on the right.
  • That gives you another author field. Click again for another.
  • 'Ref name" is where you name your reference, usually the author's last name.
  • Don't call a reference a name that you or someone else has already used.
  • Instead of Smith, you can use Smith2, Smith2018, etc.
  • Click "Show/hide extra fields" to see more choices. Click again to hide the choices.
  • The name of the web site can be The New York Times or Rolling Stone, etc.
  • Don't worry about irrelevant fields.
  • You want the author's first name and last name.
  • The date the article was published.
  • The date you accessed it on the web.
  • The name of the web site.
  • The name of your reference.
  • Preview what you have by clicking the "Preview" button.
  • If everything looks OK, click "Insert".
  • If you're using information from a printed book, use the Cite Book template.
  • Enter the ISBN number first, click on the box, and most of the information should fill in.
  • If not, enter it manually.
  • Remember to include author's name, title of book, publisher, year of publication, and page numbers.

Advice about linking[edit]

Not everything has to be linked. Readers don't link click links that often, so you can get away with fewer than you might think. Overlinking, on the other hand, is counterproductive and damages the system, diluting the useful links.

Is the reader interested in the link you created? If you are working on an article about the trumpeter Louis Armstrong, putting a link around "trumpet" means that the reader wants to read about trumpets. If you link to his hometown, New Orleans, then you are assuming people are going to read about New Orleans after they read about Armstrong. If you link to his place of death, Queens, New York, you are assuming people want to read about Queens, New York. If you link Los Angeles because he performed there, you are assuming people are going to read about Los Angeles. Think about this when you create links.

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Don't link words because you think they are unfamiliar to most people. It's easy for readers to enter words in Google or elsewhere to find their meaning.

The Armstrong article contains links for all the musicians, venues such as the Cotton Club, Los Angeles, President Eisenhower, satchel, embouchure, cornet, African Americans, desegregation, baptismal records, Boutte, Louisiana, Fisk School for Boys, spasm bands, discrimination, Star of David, riverboats, Mississippi River, Richmond, Indiana, Roseland Ballroom, black people, marijuana, RCA ribbon microphone, scat singing, the Great Depression, 1950, heart attack, and US State Department.

Can you say confidently that the same person who reads an article about Louis Armstrong also wants to read articles about all of these topics?

Guidelines[edit]

  • Don't put links in section headers
  • Avoid putting links in quotations
  • Don't link subjects most readers are familiar with.
  • Don't link major cities like New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles
  • Don't link U.S. states
  • Don't link major countries like the United States, England, and Germany
  • Don't link major geographical features like North America, Europe, and the Atlantic Ocean
  • Don't link major languages like English, Spanish, German
  • Don't link nationalities and ethnicities: American, English, German
  • Don't link religions: Christianity, Buddhism
  • Don't link common occupations
  • Don't link dates and years
  • Don't link units of measurement
  • Don't link everyday words most readers know
  • Don't put links next to each other, making them look like one connected link
  • Don't make a reader use a link in order to understand a sentence
  • "Too many links can make the lead hard to read."
  • "Consider including links where readers might want to use them: at the openings of new sections, in the cells of tables, and in image captions."
  • "The function of links is to clarify, not emphasize; do not create links in order to draw attention to certain words or ideas, or as a mark of respect."

Linking in culture articles[edit]

  • In articles about music, movies, TV, art, comic books, and other pop culture subjects:

From User:Tony1

Link tip. Popular culture articles need to link to the many items that refer to musical output (songs, tracks, albums), other musicians, and bands. It is therefore of great importance that common terms not be linked unless absolutely necessary to avoid diluting these many valuable links. Unfortunately, articles on popular culture tend to indulge in significant overlinking of trivial terms (I've seen "roses", "suicide", "divorce" and "high school" recently, which detracted from the useful links).

Do not link:

  • American/US/U.S.; British/English/UK; Canada/Canadian; Ireland/Irish; Australia(n); New Zealand(er); France, Germany, Italy, Europe, China, India, Asia, etc.
  • New York (City); Los Angeles; London
  • actor/actress; comedian; singer(-songwriter); writer/author; film producer; record producer; television producer (and specify which, please); entrepreneur; businessman
  • guitar; bass guitar (don't abbreviate to "bass"); synthesizer; keyboard; drum (kit); percussion
  • film; cinema; television; radio; CD; DVD; documentary; theater/re
  • née (woman's surname before marriage); stage name; autobiography; divorce; libel; cancer; heart attack (or other common diseases)
  • game show; talk show; host
  • dates, decades, centuries
  • heroin; drug addiction; alcoholism; rape; homosexual

Is Facebook a reliable source?[edit]

Wikipedia documentation discourages the use of the following as sources: Amazon, Blogspot, CDBaby, Discogs, Facebook, iTunes, Last.FM, Musicbrainz, Pinterest, Reddit, Reverbnation, Soundcloud, Spotify, Twitter, Wordpress, YouTube, Ancestry and other genealogy sites, forums, college newspapers, sites like Revolvy that mirror Wikipedia, press releases, retail sites, and sites that exist mainly to sell a product or service.

You can use a person's official site for basic information, such as the facts of their biography, but not for promotion or advertising or subjective and debatable matters. Don't use information that says how great they are.

Beware of articles at bars, concert venues, or entertainment newspapers that are promoting a musician's appearance. Sometimes there is good information here, but often it's merely a brief announcement with some puffery to attract an audience. Often this information is copy and pasted from the official web site.

Many profiles in the All About Jazz database come verbatim from official sites. Check the official site first, then use that as the source, not All About Jazz. Generally the reviews and news reports at All About Jazz can be used, though they often seem to be written by amateurs.

Record labels, too, usually have little but promotion to offer and aren't useful or usable sources.

See also: WikiProject Albums/Sources

Read and heed[edit]

From Wikipedia documentation (quotation marks were omitted)

Articles I created are mine[edit]

No, they're not. There is no private property on Wikipedia. Every article is a collaboration with almost everyone else. Ownership of content

  • All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Also, a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say.

I want to help this person or cause[edit]

That's nice, but you can't do it here. What Wikipedia is not

  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing...It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view , which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
  • Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources...Those promoting causes or events...should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.
  • Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ... Wikipedia is also not written in news style.
  • Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary.
  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information... merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
  • Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require the Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish.

Someone vandalized my article[edit]

  • Vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia...any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism.
  • Vandalism is the intent to do harm to an article, to make it worse, to make Wikipedia worse. Much of it is done by bored teenagers on the weekend.

I'm not biased, I'm right[edit]

Be impartial

  • The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view...Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk.

Puffery

  • Words that may introduce bias: legendary, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique...
  • Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered to be one of the greatest authors in the English language. Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art.

On TV they talk this way[edit]

So? Wikipedia isn't TV. Unsupported attributions

  • Words to watch: ...some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, scientists claim, it is often said...
  • Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as peacock terms by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.

Expressions of doubt

  • Words to watch: ...supposed, apparent, purported, alleged, accused, so-called...
  • Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others.
  • Punctuation can also be used for similar effects: quotation marks, when not marking an actual quote, may indicate that the writer is distancing herself or himself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression; the use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression. Such occurrences should also be considered carefully.

Editorializing

  • Words to watch: ...notably, it should be noted, interestingly, essentially, actually, clearly, of course, without a doubt, happily, tragically, aptly, fortunately, untimely, unfortunately,...
  • The use of adverbs such as notably and interestingly, and phrases such as it should be noted, to highlight something as particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion, should usually be avoided so as to maintain an impartial tone. Words such as fundamentally, essentially, and basically can indicate particular interpretative viewpoints, and thus should also be attributed in controversial cases. Care should be used with actually, which implies that a fact is contrary to expectations; make sure that this is verifiable and not just assumed. Clearly, obviously, naturally, and of course all presume too much about the reader's knowledge and perspective and often amount to excess verbiage. Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not.
  • Words to watch: ...but, despite, however, though, although...
  • More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. Words used to link two statements such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second.

Synonyms for said

  • Words to watch: ...reveal, point out, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny, clarify...
  • Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.
  • To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living people, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability.

Relative time references

  • Words to watch: ... recently, lately, currently, today, presently, to date, 15 years ago, formerly, in the past, traditionally, this/last/next (year/month/winter/spring/summer/fall/autumn), yesterday, tomorrow, in the future, now, soon, since ...
  • Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date.

Quotations versus paraphrasing[edit]

Every person in Wikipedia is notable in some way because that's how they got in Wikipedia in the first place. So if we wanted, we could include in every article quotations from someone somewhere that say "He's the greatest!" or "What a brilliant book!!!". Let's not. There are plenty of places in the world for advertising, promotion, biased journalism, jacket copy enconiums, mash notes, and letters from one's mother to tack onto the refrigerator telling us that everything we think, say, and do is okay. Let's make Wikipedia one place where facts can be presented unfiltered by gauze. Facts aren't boring. The world is fascinating place. Facts are called boring by people who are boring.

In most cases it's better to paraphrase rather than quote. Paraphrasing is more difficult and more time consuming, but it takes up less space in the article. We live at a time when attention spans are shorter than ever, when Twitter and emoticons are considered communication. So when you write, every word counts. Every comma counts. Every space. Make your point quickly and plainly, then move on. Block quotations look nice, one or two, but they can be clutter. If you are adding a block quote because you think text is boring, make sure the text is broke into proper paragraphs and headings; add a picture, find a new picture, make sure there's an infobox. Write better captions. Are you writing lists rather than prose? Maybe it's not the text that's boring. Maybe you're boring.

Paraphrasing makes you pay closer attention to the text, whereas quotation can invite laziness because it's easier. Some people are better than others at using quotations, so quotations are often unnecessarily long. They can contain irrelevant material. They can be used unethically to sneak in a point a person wants to make, although that point may be irrelevant to the article. The weak defense is that "it's part of the quote".

Conflict of interest[edit]

A conflict of interest means "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." Paid editing is forbidden. But the Conflict of Interest rule "does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject." So if you admit that you have conflict of interest, you can still edit that article "by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits."

Writing about yourself on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. Please read Conflict of interest, Autobiography, and An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.

Before you create another article[edit]

Are you creating the article to help Wikipedia? How? Or are you creating the article because it is a subject you are interested in? Many people are not interested in what you are interested in. Wikipedia has reasons for including articles and for deleting articles. It isn't an arbitrary preference.

Before you create another article, you might work on the many thousands of existing articles that need work. For kind and generous souls there is plenty to do. Every Wikiproject has a cleanup listing.

From Improving referencing efforts: "References are vital for the quality and usefulness of Wikipedia articles. If you don't believe me, don't take my word for it. At the Wikimania conference 2006, Jimmy Wales himself said he believed Wikipedia should focus more on the accuracy of our existing material instead of creating new material. Since then, we have broken the 5 million article mark and there is still much room for improvement. We tell people to not rely on Wikipedia as their sole source of information but rather use it as a starting point for further research. For this to work, articles not only need external links to guide readers to further information, but also a list of sources we used to write the Wikipedia article so the reader can go and check our material against that of the sources to check our accuracy. In other words, we need to make a joined effort to clean up the references in Wikipedia."

Essays by Wikipedians[edit]

Style tips[edit]

Another styletip ...


Emphasis


Don't use capital letters for emphasis; where wording alone can't provide the emphasis, use italics.

Incorrect: Contrary to popular belief, aardvarks are NOT the same as anteaters.

Correct: Contrary to popular belief, aardvarks are not the same as anteaters.


Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}

Tip of the day[edit]

Automating tasks on Wikipedia

Uploading hundreds of files or changing thousands of pages can be tedious. Limited automation is allowed on Wikipedia as long as it follows certain policies. The easiest way is to use AutoWikiBrowser.

Or, you always can grab your favorite scripting language and write a bot, but there is no need to reinvent the wheel: most modern programming languages have a MediaWiki library already written, there is a full list or programming languages and libraries here. Once you have written the code, you can request approval to trial run your bot. Once approved, your bot will be flagged, so it can be hidden from the list of recent changes. Alternatively you can request someone else take care of the whole matter for you.

To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}


Jimmy Wales quote[edit]

  • Wales, Jimmy. "Insist on sources", WikiEN-l, July 19, 2006: "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources."—referring to a rather unlikely statement about the founders of Google throwing pies at each other.

Distinction[edit]

This editor is a
Veteran Editor IV
and is entitled to display this Gold Editor Star.
Peeve Petting Zoo
Initial Dependent ClausesBecause it's bad writing, don't begin a sentence with a dependent clause.
Interruptive ClausesJohn Smith, who invented fire, and who danced with wolves, but he didn't land on the moon, although he liked cheese, died.
Trendy JargonHis backstory transcludes a prequel.
Disambig.svgThis user is in the Disambiguator Hall of Fame.
Jazzstubartwork.svgThis User is a member of WikiProject Jazz
Vinyl disc icon.svgThis user is a member of
WikiProject Record Labels.

Super Disambiguator's Barnstar.png
The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the Disambiguation Pages With Links monthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links.
This award is presented to Vmavanti, for successfully fixing 2297 links in the challenge of January 2018. This user is also recognized as the Bonus List Champion of January 2018.