General note: Page blanking, removal of content on Brooke Logan. (TW) |
→Brooke Logan: new section |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
== April 2011 == |
== April 2011 == |
||
[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from [[:Brooke Logan]]. When removing content, please specify a reason in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk page]]. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brooke_Logan&action=history page history]</span>. Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-delete1 --> [[User:SQGibbon|SQGibbon]] ([[User talk:SQGibbon|talk]]) 23:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC) |
[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from [[:Brooke Logan]]. When removing content, please specify a reason in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk page]]. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brooke_Logan&action=history page history]</span>. Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-delete1 --> [[User:SQGibbon|SQGibbon]] ([[User talk:SQGibbon|talk]]) 23:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Brooke Logan == |
|||
Hello, I see we're in a conflict about the Brooke Logan article. There are some Wikipedia guidelines that might help us figure out how to proceed with the article. Here's some stuff from the [[WP:SOAPS|Wikipedia Soap Opera Project]]: |
|||
#All soap-related articles, and character articles in particular, must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fiction. Simply stated, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." |
|||
#The article should not be used for a collection of storyline trivia about the character. As a rule of thumb, only those events which were significant enough to have been written about in third-party sources should be included. |
|||
#Remember that we are here to create an encyclopedia, not to provide a comprehensive guide to soap opera storylines. Wherever possible, try to discuss the character in "real world" context: Why are they important to non-fans, how are they affecting modern culture, what have they done that is historic in a real-world context. If a detail is only interesting to those who watch the show, it is probably not worth including in the Wikipedia article. |
|||
#Storyline summary; 500-1000 words maximum |
|||
#Sources and references. Every article must have verifiable sources such as newspaper and magazine articles that talk about the character, or at the minimum, links to character biography pages on the official website for the series (per policy, fansites are usually considered unreliable). If a character is not notable enough to be mentioned in outside press, then they're not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia! |
|||
And there's more. These guidelines were developed by soap opera fans on Wikipedia over a period of many years that also conform to general Wikipedia policies and guidelines for articles. I know there are a lot of other soap opera articles that violate these guidelines but that just means we have a lot of work to do to clean them all up. If you have any questions or comments you can reach me at my talk page. Thanks. [[User:SQGibbon|SQGibbon]] ([[User talk:SQGibbon|talk]]) 08:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:43, 15 April 2011
File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Kimmat.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kimmat.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 22:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Removing tags from articles
Please do not remove tags from articles unless you either fix the problems the tags reference or provide a reason why the tag is not needed (at least in your edit summary but preferably on the talk page). Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Brooke Logan. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Brooke Logan
Hello, I see we're in a conflict about the Brooke Logan article. There are some Wikipedia guidelines that might help us figure out how to proceed with the article. Here's some stuff from the Wikipedia Soap Opera Project:
- All soap-related articles, and character articles in particular, must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fiction. Simply stated, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
- The article should not be used for a collection of storyline trivia about the character. As a rule of thumb, only those events which were significant enough to have been written about in third-party sources should be included.
- Remember that we are here to create an encyclopedia, not to provide a comprehensive guide to soap opera storylines. Wherever possible, try to discuss the character in "real world" context: Why are they important to non-fans, how are they affecting modern culture, what have they done that is historic in a real-world context. If a detail is only interesting to those who watch the show, it is probably not worth including in the Wikipedia article.
- Storyline summary; 500-1000 words maximum
- Sources and references. Every article must have verifiable sources such as newspaper and magazine articles that talk about the character, or at the minimum, links to character biography pages on the official website for the series (per policy, fansites are usually considered unreliable). If a character is not notable enough to be mentioned in outside press, then they're not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia!
And there's more. These guidelines were developed by soap opera fans on Wikipedia over a period of many years that also conform to general Wikipedia policies and guidelines for articles. I know there are a lot of other soap opera articles that violate these guidelines but that just means we have a lot of work to do to clean them all up. If you have any questions or comments you can reach me at my talk page. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)