Talk:Allie Sherlock

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Notability established, Suitably referenced.

Bogger (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Lasting relevance / NOTNEWS / NOTGOSSIP
While celeb gossip outlets might feel the need to generate some ad revenue by turning two short (apparently bullying) comments on social media into a "thing", I'm not sure we should be doing the same. Unless there is lasting relevance to a news-worthy event, it isn't necessarily an encyclopedia-worthy event. Personally I'm unsure of the lasting relevance of two social media comments. Relative to WP:NOTNEWS / WP:NOTGOSSIP. Guliolopez (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have not heard back on the above, I have gone ahead and removed the "republished celeb gossip style snippets". If restoring, the restoring editor might ideally consider whether/how/if there is any lasting relevance to two Instagram posts/comments. Guliolopez (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Busker
"Busker" is a valid term in English, according to my dictionaries; one editor believes it does not exist in American English, but that is immaterial on this article, which is in Irish English, where "busker" is very much used. Elizium23 (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone thinks "busker" isn't a word in English? Where did this person fail out of school? It's a very common word, in the United States as much as everywhere else. Moreover, it's linked to a page defining the word "busker." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As Wikipedia is used by many for whom English is not their first language, or who might be unfamiliar with a term which is not common in their specific brand of English, there is nothing wrong with a parenthetical explanation which takes almost no space and assists understanding. Cross Reference (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Eh. WP:SS and WP:ENGVAR and related guidelines cover this. Sure there may be non-English speaking readers of this article who don't know what the word "busker" means. But that is no different to visitors to the DNA article (who don't know what the word molecule means) or the orange article (who don't know what the word citrus means). Or there may be US-based speaking readers of this article who would better recognise "street performer" over "busker". But that is no different to visitors to the Dodge Dart article (who read "trunk" when "boot" might be more natural for them). This is what hyperlinking and wikilinking is "for". And what WP:ENGVAR guidelines are intended to address. There isn't really scope for every potentially unfamiliar or regional-variant term to be followed by parenthetical explanations. Personally I don't see why the SS and ENGVAR don't cover or apply here... Guliolopez (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not something I feel very strongly about: it just seems to me that the minor edit which you (Guliolopez) reverted, added to the readability of the article for those for whom (I am not one) 'busker' is not part of their vocabulary. WP:SS which you cite as justification contains this direct quote: "Excerpts (a.k.a. selective transclusion) . . . " which is, it seems to me, to be exactly the sort of thing I am inserting - a parenthetical explanation which might assist those who may be unfamiliar with the term 'excerpts'.  I may unrevert sometime if I feel like it.  Cross Reference (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. If you feel strongly enough to restore the parenthetical explanation ("busker (street performer)"), then please consider whether the first sentence is the best place to do that. To my read it feels a little like "lead clutter". To have it as (pretty much) the 10th word in the opening sentence. When, IMO, the rest of the lead provides context as to what a busker is/does. If you don't agree that the lead is clear enough, then perhaps something like "She has performed frequently as a busker (street performer) on Grafton Street" would be a bit more graceful. Or perhaps there's a similar reworking of the lead which (hopefully more elegantly) gives some context/explanation to unfamiliar readers. About what the subject is known for. Guliolopez (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)