User talk:WikiFouf

Welcome WikiFouf! Hello WikiFouf. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Walter Görlitz, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page and someone will try to help. To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload create your own personal sandbox] for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put  on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to: The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes  at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
 * Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.

 Sincerely, Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)   [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The Hottest August
Please note that if you want to start a new article about a film that didn't already have one yet, you need to write quite a bit more than just "this is a film that exists, the end". Films are not all "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to clear conditional notability standards based on their reception in the film world — notable awards, reviews by professional film critics, etc. — so a film's article has to contain quite a bit more than just one sentence's worth of information. For example, you didn't write even one word of information as to what the film is about, which is pretty essential to any article about a film, let alone any information about notable film awards or the things critics said about it in film reviews.

So if you want to start articles about films, they need to be quite a bit longer than one sentence, and they have to cite a lot more than just one piece of media coverage. The absolute bare minimum that you have to do to make even a borderline acceptable about a film looks like this, not like what you did at The Hottest August. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Unless there's some Wikipedia guideline I'm unaware of (and if so please link to it), I honestly really don't see the problem with creating an article with only the most basic information, if the article is on a notable subject which other editors can later expand upon. Of course the article is incomplete, but it didn't even exist before. Also not that it matters, but I fully intended to come back to it as soon as I had some more free time to develop it. WikiFouf (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if a short article doesn't at least state what the topic's notability claim is, it's impossible for most readers or editors who are looking at it to know whether the topic is a notable one that just needs to be expanded, or a non-notable one that can't be expanded at all. The only reason I knew that the article was salvageable is because I already know about Brett Story (spoiler alert, check out who created her article in the first place) — but to a person who doesn't have the prior background knowledge that I have, the article in its current form is effectively useless, because it isn't telling them anything about the film except that it exists, and somebody without the background knowledge that I have could easily have nominated it for deletion on the grounds that the article isn't demonstrating passage of WP:NFILM at all.
 * An article doesn't already have to be perfect right off the bat — but it does have to be at least making a notability claim right off the bat, which means it does have to be more than just "this is a thing that exists, the end". Films, again, are not automatically notable enough for inclusion just because they exist, and have to clear conditional notability standards revolving around press coverage, critical analysis and/or awards — so the bare minimum that an article about a film has to contain is not "the film exists", but "the film is notable because x, y and z". There's no urgency to getting an article into Wikipedia quickly: if you need more time to work on something, the solution isn't "create a barebones stub that doesn't even make a notability claim in the first place and then say you planned on coming back to it in the future if somebody comes to you about it", it's "wait until you have the time to write more than one sentence before you even start it in the first place", because an article always has to at least state the topic's basic notability claim right off the bat. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate it. There's no question that we have different perceptions on when an article should be published: personally I prefer publishing information (factual and well-cited information, of course) as soon as I access it and am able to put it into words. I have no compulsion to hide the "work-in-progress" quality of Wikipedia, on the contrary, because I think at its core Wikipedia is an unending work-in-progress and that's the great thing about it. I didn't start the article in my sandbox because I'd rather write and publish an article bit by bit than work on it for days or weeks and then publish it whole. The reasons for this are that A) an incomplete article is better than no article at all (Wikipedia is full of incomplete articles that still contain valuable information) and hiding my draft in a sandbox could mean that someone who could use the information doesn't have it in time, and B) from personal experience, I think toiling on the perfectly-crafted article before finally publishing it, as you would for a journal or a magazine, kind of leads you and others to think of it as "your" article rather than a collective good, which is something I personally want to avoid.
 * Anyways, all that to say that we obviously perceive things differently, you might prefer for an article to be nonexistent rather than incomplete and that's perfectly fine. The question that actually matters to me is whether I'm going against any established Wikipedia guideline, because if that's the case I'll happily change my editing habits. If not, however, then all of this is just a matter of personal differences and we can agree to disagree. For the reasons I listed above, I don't think I did anything wrong because A) the stub still contains information (very little information, I know, but still) that wasn't on the site before and that someone can use, and B) I didn't make up the notability of the subject. Any editor who stumbles upon this article can take two seconds to google "The Hottest August" and find that it's been extensively written about in the NYT, Vox, Variety, etc., and that its inclusion on Wikipedia is more than warranted. After that they can, if they want, use any of these sources to help expand the article. It should have been clearer, however, that the article was incomplete, so thank you for adding the banner, that's definitely something I should have done myself. WikiFouf (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of REM de l'Est
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article REM de l'Est you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of REM de l'Est
The article REM de l'Est you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:REM de l'Est and Talk:REM de l'Est/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of REM de l'Est
The article REM de l'Est you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:REM de l'Est for comments about the article, and Talk:REM de l'Est/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Rowling is also designated as a BLP contentious topic. Please have a look also at the information at this page, which appears every time you edit J. K. Rowling. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for REM de l'Est
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited April 2024 Israel–Hamas war protests on university campuses in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Presse. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peck Building
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Peck Building you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pencilsforall -- Pencilsforall (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Samuel Herbert Maw
Hello! Your submission of Samuel Herbert Maw at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Projet structurant de l'Est
Hello, WikiFouf. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Projet structurant de l'Est, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)