Talk:William Tunberg (artist)

Further reading

I've cleaned up the "Further reading" section a bit by tweaking the formatting and removing some of the entries already be cited as references. Some of the remaining entries are probably closer to general references than "Further reading" and some may even be able to be incorporated as inline citations directly into the article, even if they cannot currently be found online as explained in WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Sources do not have to be online, they only have to be published and reliable. Many newspapers have online archives of their old articles, and some Wikipedians have special access to these archives as explained in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Databases. As long as the cited source can be accessed by someone somewhere, verification is possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for tweaking the formatting. This is becoming a full-time project, especially since I have to read so many articles.Cstwct (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Career

It might be a good idea to divide the "Career" sections into sub-sections. This can be done chronologically by decade or by key events in Tunberg's career. For example, the last paragraph could be split off into it's own section titled "Exhibitions". All the information would still have to be sourced per WP:BLPSOURCES, but smaller more concise sub-sections would probably make the article flow better and make it easier to expand. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will work on this. Some of Tunberg's commissions don't have written documentation, only visual. I originally had visual external links, but was advised to remove them.Cstwct (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphan status

The article can probably be de-orphaned by adding it to one of the list articles found in Category:University of Southern California alumni; however, some kind of reliable source is probably going to be needed to verify Tunberg is a USC alumnus for the entry to avoid being removed since that appears to be the WP:CSC for List of University of Southern California people#Art. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do this but I will investigate. I originally had links to his degree in the article, but I was advised by an editor to remove external links, which I have done, except for Tunberg's father and uncle.Cstwct (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I found articles that mention Tunberg, but they won't connect. Anne Hughes and David C. Martin. The links turn red. Is this because Tunberg's article isn't officially in Wikipedia? This would quickly de-orphan Tunberg's article since figuring out how to incorporate USC will take time. Thx.Cstwct (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC) I found the reason they didn't connection is because Tunberg's name in the article didn't have the reference (artist) after it.Cstwct (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Tunberg is already mentioned on USC's alumni page at Category:University of Southern California alumni Cstwct (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cstwct. The page you linked to is a category page which basically is like a index for all articles who have been added to that category. That's not really related to the article's orphan status. An orphan is an article that has no incoming links from other Wikipedia articles. When you look at the article you see all kind of "blue links". These are outgoing links from this article to other related articles. Go to the William Tunberg page and on the left hand sign of the screen below the Wikipedia globe look for "What links here" under "Tools". If you click on "What links here", you should see Pages that link to "William Tunberg (artist)": these are all the links from other pages currently incoming into this article. Even though there are lots of incoming links, none of these are the kind of incoming links needed to de-orphan an article. They are all incoming links from talk pages, user pages, maintenance pages, etc, and they don't count when it comes to an article being an orphan. Basically, what needs to be is to add Tunberg's name as a wikilink to some other article: a single incoming link from another article will be sufficient to de-orphan this article and remove the "orphan" template from the article. Technically it's quite simple to add a wikilink to an article: all you need to do is add [[William Tunberg (artist)|William Tunberg]] to some other article. In actual practice, it can be a bit tricky because "William Tunberg" has to have fairly strong contextual connection to the other article so that mentioning him there makes sense; otherwise, the addition is likely to be removed by another editor. In some cases, a citation to a reliable source may be needed to support Tunberg relevance to the other article.

The easist way to de-orphan an article is to look for stand-alone list articles or lists within other articles and simply add Tunberg's name as a list entry. However, you have to figure out whether the editors working on the other article have established any kind of common selection criteria for inclusion. For some articles, this criterion is simply that the individual being added have there own stand-alone article; for other article's, however, a citation to a reliable source may be required in addition. If you look at List of University of Southern California people#Art, you see that each of the entries in that particular section not only has it's own stand-alone article, but also is supported by a citation. Tunberg's name can be added to that article without a supporting citation, but it might be removed by another editor as unsourced. Since Tunberg was born in LA, it might also be possible to add him to List of people from Los Angeles#T. Looking at that particular section, all of the entries have stand-alone articles, but none of them are supported by a reliable citation. However, if you scroll up to the very top of the article, you see that the entire article has been tagged with Template:Refimprove which means whomever adds the entry should try and add a citation to a reliable source which states Tunberg was born in LA to better ensure his name remains in the article. Even with such a citation, it's possible that someone else may feel "he's not notable enough for inclusion" in comparison to the other people listed, and if that happens then the matter should be discussed on the article's talk page per WP:BRD. If you de-orphan the article, just follow the instructions a WP:DE-ORPHAN and add an appropriate edit sum. Then, go to the Tunberg article and remove the "orphan" template from the article and add an appropriate edit sum. As long as you leave clear edit sums explaining what you're doing and why, the edits will likely be seen as incontroversial and OK for you to make per WP:COIADVICE. If you want to play things 100% safe, just post Template:Request edit on the talk page of the article you want to add Tunberg's name to, and another unconnected editor will (1) either add the name for you, or (2) explain why they could not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I understand about USC. There are at least two articles that directly mention Tunberg, which I found with the links tool. I have linked them now. I removed the orphan status and filled out the edit sum. I hope I did this correctly. Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, what you did seems fine to me and I don't think anyone would consider it controversial. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Northridge quake of 1994 and Bel Air Church cross

I've been looking for online versions of the sources cited as references. In particular, I've been trying to focus on newspapers because major news papers tend to archive their old articles and many of these archives can be found online via HighBeam Research or Newspapers.com.

There is a statement within William Tunberg (artist)#Career that might need to be discussed. It is attributed to the Los Angeles Times, which is a reliable source, but it may be something submitted by one of the paper's readers and not one of it's reporters. The statement is as follows:

When the 1994 Northridge earthquake occurred, the Los Angeles Times noted reported "The 300-pound cross, barely anchored to the floor, did not topple, nor was it touched by the water, though everything around it was ruined.

and the source cited in support is "Hearts of LA: How the Quake Changed Our Lives" from January 30, 1994.

I've been looking for this and have found of other LA Times "articles" from the same date with the same title such as Hearts of L.A. / How the Quake Rocked Our Spirits and Changed Our Lives : COPING WITH CHAOS : 'No one wanted to be alone again', Hearts of L.A. / How the Quake Rocked Our Spirits and Changed Our Lives : COPING WITH CHAOS : 'As time goes by, we will all forget the terrible fear', Hearts of L.A. / How the Quake Rocked Our Spirits and Changed Our Lives : MAKING SENSE : 'I hope that this will be like a turning point', and Hearts of L.A. / How the Quake Rocked Our Spirits and Changed Our Lives : TAKING CHARGE : 'I kept thinking, "I'm going to wake up"'. These all seem to be from a section in which the paper printed readers' own stories about their experiences when the quake occured and are not really articles by the paper's reporters or vetted by the paper's editorial staff. Damage Hearts of L.A. / How the Quake of '94 Rocked Our Spirits and Changed Our Lives looks like something written by the paper as an introduction to this particular section, but it makes no mention of the Bel Air Church cross or Tunberg. There are 42 of these "Heart of L.A." articles found on this archive page, and checking through them I was able to find Hearts of L.A. / How the Quake Rocked Our Spirits and Changed Our Lives : MAKING SENSE : 'I think God intervened' submitted by a Bill Tunberg. This is the source where the quote comes from, but the question is whether this should be considered a primary source and user-generated or something written by one of the paper's reporters. The beginnings of all these articles look like something written by someone at the paper, but I'm not sure how much editorial oversight was involved and whether this is something is OK per MOS:QUOTE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The article was solicited by the LA Times, who wanted to do a segment on Bel Air Church and Tunberg's cross because the cross was untouched and left standing while the rest of the church was almost destroyed.

The LA Times asked Tunberg to meet a reporter at the church, where the interview took place. Are you suggesting Tunberg wrote the article and submitted it to the LA Times? If so, you are wrong. Would you like a scan of the article so you can see Tunberg was interviewed at the church in front of the cross? The online version has no visuals. The LA Times most likely chose to use the actual words of those it interviewed because it wanted to personalize the tragedy. The Northridge earthquake happened January 17, 1994. The article, which consisted of a substantial stand-alone section dedicated to the impact of the earthquake, was written January 30, 1994, less than two weeks after the earthquake. It's impossible to solicit stories from the public, review all solicitations, write the article, and have it reviewed and published in less than two weeks.

Further, are you suggesting that no editor reviewed the article before it was printed? I can't imagine that a newspaper as prestigious as the LA Times would allow one word to be published without editorial oversight.

The LA Times article was used in Tunberg's article to document that Tunberg was commissioned by Bel Air Church to do its altar cross and that the cross was a substantial commission.Cstwct (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying things. The author of the piece appeared to me to be given as Bill Tunberg which made it seem like it was something submitted/written by him and not a reporter from the paper. If that was the case, then it probably should be treated as a primary source and not a secondary source for this article. If this was an interview, then it probably would also be considered a primary source as explained per Wikipedia:Interviews. This does not mean we cannot use the source, but it might mean we should might have to tweak that sentence a bit if the quote came from Tunberg during the interview and not from the reporter interviewing him. Newspapers tend to check the own work fairly well, but might not be as dilligent with user submissions. However, since you say it wasn't a user submission, then that's probably not an issue here. There is no by-line given for the article and the way the online version is laid out looked to me like Tunberg wrote it. Now that it's clear he didn't, I can clean up the citation formating accordingly.

Perhaps you can clarify another source for me. I was able to find William Tunberg - Innovations in Marquetry online which might be the same as "Gadziak, Sam (June 2003). "Innovations in Marquetry". CWB Magazine. pp. 59–62" cited in the article. The author is the same, but the dates are almost 10 years apart and the name of the publication is different. Is this online version the same as the one be cited in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I've found that online versions are never the same as the printed versions. They're usually shorter and have fewer visuals. The online version is reprinted for a different publication. Woodworking Network is not the same company as CWB magazine. Would you like me to send you a scan of the magazine article?Cstwct (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

All Wikipedia is really interested in is reliable sources which can be used to verify what is written in the article; it's not really concerned with the visuals, etc. which can be found in such articles. If what's in this online version of Gadziak's article can be used to verify the content it's supposed to support, then we can use it. If there's another more complete version of the source which can be found online somewhere, then we can use that instead; the other option is to simply cite things without any link to an online source. Sending me a scan does no good because that's nothing that anyone else anywhere in the world can see to verify. If there's some way to put this scan online, e.g., a convenience link, then maybe that can be used. However, Wikipedia cannot link to anything which might be a copyright violation per WP:COPYLINK and WP:EL#cite_note-copyvio_exception-1, so it's better to try and find some kind of official website instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The link you found takes the user to a substandard article and I wouldn't want people to see that version. The magazine version is much nicer. If a link is necessary, I can try to reach the author to see if he'll allow the article to be linked to Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that online versions don't measure up. I think the visuals are impt because they put the text in context. Let me know if I should contact CWB. Thx.Cstwct (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

If there's a more complete version of the artcile which can be found online then a link to it can be added as part of the citation; if there's not, then the choice is no link or a link to what can be found online. It's much easier for other editors to verify article content when the cited source can be found online, but it's not something that is required. All that is needed is that the sources cited be a reliable, be published and be accessible. Even non-English sources may be used as article citations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to link an old, substandard online article that hasn't been updated or tended. Why is it important for other editors to check and recheck ad infinitum an article that's already been verified? That's over to the top. Other editors can read the talk page to see the article has been verified if they want to re-scrutinize the citations. It's a beautiful article in hard copy. I'll try to contact the author to see if we can link to a scan. However, if Wikipedia links to the scan, will the author be giving it away for the public to copy without permission? I would have to disclose this to him.Cstwct (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Verification is a continuously ongoing process that can take place anytime a new editor reads an article. Ideally, all content, except really basic stuff, within an article is supported by a citation to a reliable source so that anyone reading the article can verify what is written by examining the source. This is especially important with respect to stand-alone articles about living persons or content in other articles about living persons. If there is an online reliable source which can support what's written in this article, then its use should be considered. Nobody can see your hard copy of the article and being beautiful is not really one of the requirements for a reliable source. If there is a copy of the article somewhere online on some official page of CWB magazine, then we can use it. If someone posts a scan of the article online, then perhaps we can add that link to that as long as the link is not a violation of the rights of the original copyright holder, which I am assuming is CWB magazine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. I'll study Verification. Meanwhile, can you please clarify. If a newspaper or magazine or other publication physically exists, and someone cites it, but the cited publication is no longer online (happens a lot), does that mean the source can't be used? For example, I was checking links to an AS article and the link no longer works. I've emailed the publication to see if there's a new address, but they may have taken it off because they need the room on their server. So if the cite can't be used, what about all the old papers and articles and books where the publication company doesn't exist anymore, or the author is dead, or the book is out of print? Just because an article ages or a publication ceases to exist, this doesn't make the text of the article irrelevant and of no consequence. It's only logical that as time goes by, companies will need space on their websites and take articles off. This puts an undue burden on the writer of the article and Wikipedia. Once a cite has been checked by an editor, can't verification of this be put on the article's talk page so the cites don't need to be checked over and over again. Just think how much time this would save Wikipedia's editors.Cstwct (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not need to be available online; they only need to be published and accessible: this means that there's is a copy of the source somewhere that somebody could access and verify if necessary. An online source is just easier to verify because anyone can click on the link and check it. Sources once available online whose links no longer work are referred to as dead links. Many websites archive or overwrite their content, and an archived version of the original page can be sometimes be found after a bit of a search. Wikipedia encourages editors to not remove dead links, but rather to try and fix them or tag them with Template:Dead link so that others can try to fix them. There are bots which do go around searching for dead links in articles and they will fix them whenever possible, but you can do so yourself if you can find an archived version of the website. If you verify a citation to a source, you can (if you want) change the "accessdate" parameter (see WP:ACCESSDATE) to let others know that you checked the link/source. You can also post a message on the article's talk page if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cstwct—there is also the Wayback Machine, and in addition to WP:PUBLISHED, mentioned above, also see WP:PAYWALL. Bus stop (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bus stop. Thank you for these resources!Cstwct (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Request edit

1. Fix typo under Career (delete "noted"): When the 1994 Northridge earthquake occurred, the Los Angeles Times noted reported "The 300-pound cross,... Done

2. Cite needed for Karl Tunberg & Ben Hur: "Karl Tunberg Oscar Nominee for Ben Hur". April 11, 1992. Los Angeles Times. [1]</ref> Done

Name

Since Tunberg's father is also named William, I am wondering if that makes the son William Tunberg, Jr. or William Tunberg II. Article titles typically follow WP:COMMONNAME, but the official name (legal name) of the individual should be used per WP:BIRTHNAME if different from the common name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. There's no difference in names. There is no II or Jr. after Tunberg's name. The only difference is the middle name.Cstwct (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Request edit

To resolve cite needed for Tunberg's drawing style (Career, 2nd to last paragraph): Delete paragraph that needs cite. Beginning "Tunberg's signature drawing..." and ending "...uses marquetry on three-dimensional surfaces."Cstwct (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)  Done

Request edit

Delete Marquetry section. Original intent to develop this section has been abandoned.Cstwct (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)  Done