Talk:Limbo (boutique)

Questions from the article's creator

I would be interested in knowing more about Limbo's relationship with the Fillmore East and Andy Warhol's Ballon Farm. (Bosalino (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC))

Looking for someone to help me clean up the Limbo boutique St. Marks Place page. I think there is something of value in the history of the Store and its importance to St. Marks Place during the 1960s. More information will be found that will add value to the site, but in the meantime, I need help keep the page up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosalino (talk • contribs) 02:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am currently working with some friend to fix article to accommodate Wikipedia's expectations. Any help would be deeply appreciatedBosalino (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --Bosalino (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC) LImbo is a lost cultural institution that deserves to be recognized as part of vanishing New York City. The store's influence in the period of the 1960's can not be contested, nor its lasting influence on contemporary fashion, see recent interview/profile of Tommy Hilfiger in May 1, 2011 New York Post. With recent books on comparable institutions and individuals such as Max's Kansas City and Patti Smith;s book, Just Kids, there is a revival about New York City's recent history—even as the City is becoming an increasingly generic global city dominated by national and international brands.

I am currently seeking help to see that the page conforms to Wikipedia style and content requirements. I expect in the following days to have mistakes corrected and new information added, including visual elements that will confirm Limbo's importance in New York's popular culture. To deny Limbo a presence on Wikipedia would be a disservice to everyone interested in knowing more about the City in general, and about the "creation" of the East Village in particular.

There are currently a number of writers (myself included) and cultural historians who are watching, with no small amount of sadness, as unique places and people, who once defined of the City, are being excluded from its history. Toward that end, the Limbo entry will give social/cultural historians a place that will provide various points of departure to interconnected topics including, but not limited to New York City fashion, rock & roll, and popular culture that originated in one neighborhood in New York and then spread first nationally and then globally.Bosalino (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As I add links and new information that add value to the page, I would appreciate some help fixing obvious problems with style/content usage.Bosalino (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the article to bring it into Wikispec. I think you still may have to tackle questions about the essential notability of a store which was only open for 10 years, but the amount of support you provided in references from reliable sources was convincing to me. I've removed the PROD I added last night. Good luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added an image. Although it's of Trash and Vaudeville, it does show the steps and landing referrred to in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

My Ken, I very much I appreciate your help and will, with the help of others, address the issue of "essential" notability. Although the store was open for only ten years, its impact on fashion, and by extension, popular culture far exceeds its relative longevity. One has to imagine a place where on a given day Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Jimi Hendrix, Allen Ginsberg and John Lennon might be at the store at the same time. It was a place where my thesis advisor (at The New School) told me that "the first three times he met Andy Warhol was at Limbo." As for the Picture, you added, I thank you for that but plan to add an original photos from the Times and other publications, once I figure out how to place an image. Enough for now except to thank you again, and to promise that I will continue to try to demonstrate why this "cultural institution" mustn't be allowed to slip from our grasp.Bosalino (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My Ken, I just read through your revision and want to thank you again for your help. Also, I'm beginning to better understand how the site functions, for example the use of "references." It was very kind of you and much appreciated.Bosalino (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, my pleasure. I do want to give you some advance warning that in talking about uploading a picture from other publications, you are entering a minefield. Here are some tips:

• In general, Wikipedia only wants articles to have non-copyrighted images. Original pictures that you have taken are fine, as are pictures which are old enough that they have fallen out of copyright. (In those cases, though, it's better to upload them to Wikimedia Commons, our companion site which is dedicated to images, sound files, etc. and which only accepts "free" (i.e. non-copyrighted) images.
• You can use a limited number of copyrighted images in an article -- "limited" in this case meaning, for all intents and purposes, a single picture per article -- under the legal concept of "fair use" and much more restrictive Wikipedia non-free copyrighted materials policy. Any "non-free" image must be uploaded here on Wikipedia, and cannot be put on Commons, and it must be accompanied by a "non-free fair use rationale" which explains why this particular image has to be used, and why it cannot be replaced by a free image.
• Enforcement of the non-free image policies is inconsistent and problematic. Some admins absolutely insist that the image adhere in every particular to the very letter of the non-free policy, and will, for instance, insist that a non-free image must in some respect improve an article in a way that text alone cannot do. Thus, they will not allow anything which they deem to be in any respect decorative, or illustrative but without a strong and direct connection to the article.

Thus, you should abandon any thought of adding a number of images culled from other publications as, unfortunately, they will not survive the vetting process and will eventually be removed. I would suggest finding a single image that enhances the article significantly, and make sure that there is discussion within the article of the subject or topic which the image deals with. In this way, you have the best chance possible of having the image be accepted. As for the nuts and bolts of uploading it, when you find that perfect image, let me know and I'll talk you through it.

If it seems as if I'm trying to scare you off from adding a non-free image, that is not the case. I've dealt with the problem of getting non-free images into articles, and I've won a few and lost many. I just want to give you an idea of what you're getting into. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In case you're wondering, the Trash & Vaudeville image came from the Commons, and is a free image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My Ken, Thank you again for your offer to help, I will drop some images in Wikipedia Commons and also contact you with the images I'd like to use. (Since they were taken in the 1960s, they may fall under "fair use" doctrine. Bosalino (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear "fair use" is for images which are still copyrighted, but which we're using anyway for reasons we have to provide. These images cannot be uploaded to Commons, which doesn't accept copyrighted images. Anything from the 60's isn't old enough to have fallen out of copyright in the US, where the dividing line is 1923. Also, images where 100 years have passed from the author's (creator's) death are out of copyright.

Just wante to make sure I wasn't misleading you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for the guidance. I'll confirm with Marty that he owns the art—the pointing hand logo he owns. The others I'll check. --Bosalino (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)