Welcome WikiFouf!

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.

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. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

On 25 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article REM de l'Est, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the REM de l'Est, a planned light rail network, was abandoned due to its controversial use of elevated railways in downtown Montreal? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/REM de l'Est. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, REM de l'Est), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply