User talk:AstroHurricane001/Archive 18

=March 2008=

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #14
♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 05:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Red links.
I prefer the category to be red (I don't mind it's deleted), and my userpage template is very complicated (when I transclude it to my main userpage, the red links become the portal-like boxes). Cheers, · AndonicO  Hail!  12:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Please help!
, hi, I really need help with this. It says the page I created: Demo 2007 (Courtesy Blush) is like going for Speedy Deletion or something. Can you help me so that it won't be deleted, please!

Thanks! мιІапэџѕ (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy Blush
You only put sufficient links on the article to prove this basement band is no more notable than my basement band. Gigposters.com and so on are not acceptable sources for a serious online encyclopedia - all they prove is this band has been trying to promote themselves online. While some may now argue that the band is notable according to WP:MUSIC because it's asserted the band has played outside Canada, this article still won't survive an AfD because people there typically hold articles to the higher standard of WP:N. Any lengthy interviews on MuchMusic, feature articles (not gig shouts) in Exclaim, anything in a real magazine, any mention in an actual book? That's the standard that's officially adhered to at Wikipedia, partially to protect us from turning into a spam farm. I hope you can find that level of sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Regarding Astrophotography
The reason to remove an external link to a "how to" is contained at WP:EL item #1:


 * Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

i.e. a "how to" would be beyond what an article would contain if it became a Featured article, Featured article's do not contain "how tos". That means that wikipedia guidelines would reffer to links as well as articles. I noted in edit that a link to Wikihow would be ok since it is a sister project specificaly for "how tos". I will look again at the link and will and probably revert it, unless there is something I am missing here. 72.184.196.222 (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * External links are for linking information that could be:
 * "further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews)."


 * So we should avoid "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article". I think that is self explanitory, and "how-to" links do not provide any resource mentioned in the first quote. Also we have #13 "Avoid sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject". The subject of the articel is "Astrophotography", and how it can be described encyclopedicaly. A how-to contains no description at all re: history, technilogical description, social or scientific significance, ect.


 * As to WikiHow, it is the place for "how-tos", Wikipedia is not. Same as Commons is the place for image repository, ect.


 * Yes this may be a good one to bring up at WP:ELs talk page. I will try to comment there, even though I am on a beach right now (and therefor under an IP). 72.184.196.222 (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)