User talk:Timtrent/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Draft:Moriyama Teshima Architects

Hi there. I'm just following up on a declined submission. Would it be possible to get a bit of clarification on why it was declined? I've revised the sources for the submission quite a number of times to account for comments I've received. What would make them more successful? Likewise, a number of the citations are from very reputable, widely circulated, newspapers speaking directly about Moriyama Teshima. Are you looking for print media? JLzero02 (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, just seeing your other comment regarding notability. What would qualify? The firm is one of the most famous in Canada and has been around since the 60's, it's about as reputable in the country as it gets. I'm happy to include that information, I just don't know how to communicate that. JLzero02 (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you read the comment. I was just asking whether you had when you added this message. one of the most famous in Canada is an odd thing. You need to be able to verify its fame, but fame per se is not always the same as notability in a Wikipedia sense.

As I said, you have concealed notability in a welter of stuff. We need to cut the forest down to find the serial tree we seek.

Stand back from this. Ask yourself "What in this shows notability?" and be brutal. When you find it, clear away the brushwood. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@JLzero02 forgot to ping 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the encouragement! Will give er a shot! JLzero02 (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@JLzero02 You can do this. What you have now is far larger than the end result will be 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind taking a look to see if I'm on the right track (it's not quite yet completed, but I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding your suggestions). I've gotten rid of a lot of the projects, and the ones that I've retained, I've included a bit of additional information on. Thank you so so much for your help by the way. I've been eager to make this article better but wasn't sure how to tackle it. JLzero02 (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@JLzero02 You are definitely getting there. I think you are close. I know it's been hard to cut material out. Notability needs to shine out, and can only do so when there is "just" sufficient information to allow it to do so. Almost always less truly is more.

I've only skimmed what you have done. Anther reviewer will review it when you submit it (fresh eyes are always better), but what I can see is that the shorter draft welcomes the reader in.

From now on it's a matter of referencing. One good one is worth a goodly number of poor ones. Be ruthless in checking the quality of references. They must be:

• Significant coverage (3 or more useful paragraphs)
• Independent of the subject
• About the subject of the article, not by the subject!
• In reliable sources (that is hard to judge, for example tabloid newspapers tend not to be reliable, despite being mainstream, media; Also see WP:FORBESCON

You might wish to read this essay. A little too late for this draft, there is a process in it which almost guarantees success provided the topic is truly notable. You can still use it to check your trajectory, of course!

The difficulty with architects is that their product - design - has to speak for them. Thus a review of their buildings, while not always useful, can speak to the architect's notability. It all depends who reviews them!

To many folk see the review and reviewer as an obstacle. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.

Let me digress and give you an example of brevity and notability - Elsie Reasoner Ralph - undeniably notable as 'The first female war correspondent in US history', yet there is almost nothing to say about her. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for these resources! I'll review them all and hopefully will get this article where it needs to be (and will certainly be applying it to articles I hope to write in the future). JLzero02 (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@JLzero02 When you think you have completed this draft, let it mature for a couple of days before you resubmit. There is no deadline, but as it simmers gently you may think of the one key thing... 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to extend my sincere apologies for the recent misunderstanding regarding the "writing about yourself" guidelines. I misinterpreted the intent behind these instructions and did not realize that self-promotion was prohibited. It was never my intention to convey a misleading impression or to make such an oversight, especially when the guidelines clearly state that self-promotion is not allowed.

I deeply regret any confusion this may have caused and am committed to adhering strictly to the established guidelines moving forward. Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,

Corey Wesley Coreycreativemind (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Coreycreativemind No worries at all 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

re: Draft:Easterhouse Festival Society

Hi there, sorry to bother you. I’m just new here, so I’m trying to figure out how this stuff works.

I notice that you just rejected Draft:Easterhouse Festival Society, and wanted to touch base to ask why / what to do about it. I didn’t create the draft, but had edited it and found sources for it during the last submission period, and would like to get it fit for acceptance if possible, because it seems like an interesting page.

You said in your rejection that it didn’t have enough sources that were in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent. As far as I can tell though, while the introduction about why the society was needed doesn’t directly address the society, in the section that does we have two TV programs from Scotland TV and the BBC directly talking about the society at the time, a Glasgow times article from this year (2024) talking about the most famous artwork the society produced, and a book published in 2020 which is about one of the major participants of the society, and the play that won a fringe first award at the Edinburgh fringe.

These all seem to fulfil the in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent criteria?

You also note that there is too much information, and too many citations, so I can only assume that the extra stuff somehow dilutes the relevance of the other directly relevant citations/sources? I was under the impression that once the basics were established, extra sources didn’t subtract relevance from those basic sources, but maybe I’m wrong? Like I said, I’m new so I’m still trying to figure this stuff out.

Given that you want less information / fewer sources for acceptance, which parts would you like to see cut? I’m guessing the earlier “reasons the society was created” sections?

Thanks for your help Absurdum4242 (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Absurdum4242 I'm not seeing the references and the text in the same manner that you are. I suppose that is obvious.

The TV shows are interesting. But one presented by the society seems to be what they wish to say, so doesn't verify notability.

There is a difficulty with pre society history, one you will not think obvious, and which is subtle. Imagine a reference saying "There is a need for Foo!" and another a while later, saying "We have Foo!" What those have not established is a link between need and arrival of Foo. We call any cause relationship stated or implied as WP:SYNTH. You need to be careful not to link the gangs and their disappearance with the arrival of the society unless a reference links them directly.

References not mentioning the society are hard to justify as useful. Check these with care, please.

Consider that the artwork may be notable independent of any notability of the society. It os a paradox that a work may be notable and the creator of the work may not be.

Do you see where I am going with this? Please come back with further questions. I'm sorry you had to wait so long for a reply, In have been busy all day. I probably have left unanswered questions simply because I am too tired to think too deeply 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks very much for taking the time to reply.

Don’t worry about replying quickly, I saw in your profile that you’re busy IRL, and was expecting a reply to take days not hours 😆

I guess what is confusing me a little is what I’ve been reading over on the notability page - ie the parts quoted below

- “Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists

The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles.”

- “Article content does not determine notability

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.”

- “Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources in libraries, bookstores, and the internet) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.”

These policies seem to suggest that so long as the subject of the article (The society in this case), has been covered in external sources which are *significant, *reliable, *independant, *secondary sources - and that such sources exist whether or not currently included in the page as written. That some of the linkages in the page as currently written are weakish (although I disagree about exactly how weak, given there’s a source given which says the dude who created the society did so specifically because he was concerned about the previous level of gang violence) seems not to matter so long as they exist - given the policy that says poor writing and referencing doesn’t decrease the subject’s notability”? Nor do they need to be in the article as written at all, at least not at first, given that the policy “does not require their immediate presence or citation in the article” as long as there is a “possibility or existence of notability-indicated sources that are not currently in the article”?

I’m not at all having a go at you for denying the article, or suggesting that you should have done otherwise… I’m just confused since I’m new here whether the actual culture of long term editors has decided to interpret these policies differently than they are written (or at least how I am reading them as written)?

Sorry for taking you time with this long reply - you seem to be really good at articulating this stuff, so I thought I’d ask, and hopefully it will help me do better in future.

Thanks, Michael. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Absurdum4242 I think there is often a difference between theory (policy) and practice (what editors do with a mainspace article). The role of Reviewer is to seek to protect creating editors such as yourself from the vagaries of editors who happen upon articles and sometimes offer them for deletion with poor rationales (causing the creating editor stress and grief) and even sometimes succeeding in the deletion.

That was a whole paragraph to say that Wikipedia is weird!

The role of a reviewer is to accept any draft whcih each of us, individually, believes has a greater than 50% probability of surviving an immediate deletion process. To define "immediate" I choose it to mean "with no other edits since it entered mainspace" so obviously I didn't feel yours was quite there. Equally obviously I am relatively human and can make mistakes! I think you think I have here. That's ok by me. I have no need to defend my corner.

That means that, if you feel I ought to have accepted it, and say to me "Please revisit your review, I think you are mistaken" I will be happy to do just that, and accept the draft. You have no need to resubmit it, you only have to ask me.

Now, if I cut to the chase of what you are saying, it is the difference between "Inherent Notability" and "Demonstrated and Verified Notability" - that is what you are saying, isn't it?

Subjects, topics, with inherent notability should be accepted, perhaps even if the draft is exceeding poor, something yours is not, exceeding poor. The question is, what will happen at [[WP:AFD]? That is something I cannot predict. Deletion discussions are meant to be policy based. Usually they are. Often they are not.

What you need to think hard about is "Does my topic have inherent notability?"

If it does not, but needs the notability to be verified, the next question to ask of the draft is "Setting aside my wish for it to be published as it is now, looking at the draft with, ideally, a jaundiced eye, does it have sufficient references which pass the criteria below to survive:

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

This is where I see it as just below the threshold. Does your new jaundiced eye see it as above? If you are on the fence about it (jaundiced eyes do that), don;t ask me simply to accept it. Instead, ask me to ask another reviewer whose opinions I trust, to take a look with a view to acceptance.

I'm pretty sure I haven't given you direct answers to your questions, but have I answered sufficiently so you understand my thought processes? And remember, I make mistakes. We all do. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Tim,

that all makes sense, and definitely gives me something to think about. I think what I’m going to do now is maybe give the actual creator of the draft a chance to improve it, and possibly talk to him in a week or two if he hasn’t, see if we can get on the same page. I just stumbled across the page and thought it was interesting, which is why I tried to help out. I won’t ask you to review it, or check with anyone until after a bit of time has passed and I’ve touched base with the creator or had another go myself at digging up sources. I agree that the pre-society introduction is long, and… perhaps too reliant on quotes? But I don’t want to just cut it all either, because it isn’t MY draft.

Really I was mostly just trying to get the policy vs culture here clear in my mind, because 1/ it seems from observation that it differs, and 2/ I very much suspect that I prioritise usefulness / interest more, and… internalised policies around denying / deleting for lack of direct relevance than a lot of the editors on here. I’d rather have a weak (but factually true) article on here if it’s useful / interesting, and then work to improve it, rather than deny / delete it, which seems to be some editors main interest (I’ve come across several, even just in two weeks, who only delete / deny, and do not edit / create - which I’m not suggesting describes you, or is even wrong, it’s just not my mindset). It… seems to have been wikipedias’s original motivating force too, and I wonder if time / cultural drift has affected it without people necessarily noticing.

Anyway, not suggesting you made a mistake, and don’t have my more asks at this stage. Really happy you’ve taken the time to explain this so clearly to a noobie, and that you have a great weekend.

michael. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Absurdum4242 The thing about all reviewers is that we have asked to perform the role because we want to accept articles.

At the same time we also want to keep the true trash out.

A new reviewer is less likely to accept a borderline draft than an experienced one. The new reviewer still think is it is a but abut them and their reputation. An experienced one knows that it is all about the article. I aim to accept any borderline draft I come across, for example, because I am confident in my thinking. And I still make mistakes. I am only as good as my most recent review!

The weekend will see may at my local sailing club. I support my local RYA Sailability group in making sure those folk who need extra support to sail get the best fun they can possibly have.

I hope your weekend is excellent tooo 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:John_M._Dorsey,_Jr.

Thanks for the assessment. I was looking for an neutral opinion, and you told me what I'd feared but hoped against. It was worth a shot! I've already offered up pretty much every source that is available on line, and will not be revising the article further. Who and how should the draft be removed? Thanks again for taking the time. AwryGuy (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@AwryGuy Sleep on it for a couple of days. Then, if you are certain it cannot be proven to be notable, apply {{Db-u1}} on a line of its own, at the head. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Presumably there is nothing to prevent me from re-submitting the thing in the unlikely event that further suitable sourcing emerges. AwryGuy (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@AwryGuy No obstacle at all. I hope sources emerge. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Your essay

I know your thoughts on PAs, but this vandalism was glaring and offensive. Someone who doesn't know you might be concerned about your thoughts. I haven't rev del'ed so feel free to revert me if you disagree. Star Mississippi 19:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Star Mississippi. I think this might be revel'd with benefit. Obviously mine is a perfect scale model! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi The IP seems generally to be offensive, probably a child. I'll leave what you do about then to you entirely. I don't mind all sorts of personally directed ordure on my talk page, but not in things I've bothered about creating. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I just took out their trash. Sorry for the extra edit to your essay, couldn't figure out how to rev del without it at first. Star Mississippi 19:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi I'm sure you wiped your feet om the mat, though. Bin collection happens soon! Unless they are on strike of course. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MAAsterG

Hi @Timtrent Thanks for your inputs on the draft page, MAAsterG. Quite enlightening. I have removed references to Youtube link citations as I was unable to ascertain if a video is in fact protected by copyright or not. I have also made changes as per the Manual of Style. Please review this and let me know if any further inputs or if this is good to go. Thanks again ARGHJ (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@ARGHJ I am afraid you will need to trust your own instincts. I am travelling for the next couple of weeks 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cercle_d%27%C3%89tudes_Scientifiques_Pierre_Rayer

I have just made changes to the article in question and I would like to have your feedback on it if it is good or not; also regarding the two accounts underlined above it was an error on my part and I have already explained myself on that, Waiting for your return, thank you Inspiringflow (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Inspiringflow Please do not await a review from me. As it said when you made this post, and as it says at the head of this page "I do not review drafts on request, nor, normally, do I review a draft more than once, so please do not ask"

Wth regard to the twin accounts, It is not an issue provided you have discarded one of them. If you have edited from both after being warned about it then it is not an error. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

For the twin account please delete it, I don't know how to do it, I'm talking more precisely about deleting inspiringflow1 Inspiringflow (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Inspiringflow Accounts cannot be deleted. They may be rendered useless. Please deploy {{admin help me}} on your user talk page and explain that the (abandoned) account was an error and that you wish it to be blocked to avoid future misunderstanding. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

GPTZero

I just saw your comment in an AFD that GPTZero thinks that something was written by artificial intelligence. I assume that more specifically means by a large language model. What is GPTZero? Is it a program that tries to detect writing by large language models? Sometimes text is detected as possibly AI-written that, to a retired IT engineer, reads like marketing buzzspeak, sales material that may be attempting to dazzle or amaze the reader. In the computer industry, such stuff was typically written by sales personnel, and was viewed with disgust by the engineers who did the real technical work. The large language model may have been trained on a base of material that includes marketing literature. So if a large language model writes marketing buzzspeak, it may be imitating blatant marketing writing by humans. It doesn't matter much, because any draft containing marketing buzzspeak should be declined or rejected, and an article containing marketing buzzspeak should probably be nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon My working life was as a bullshit and hype creator for US IT companies. Oddly, it's an art to write appealing(!) ordure. I can quite see what you're saying here. Training LLMs with 'ordinary' text alone is foolish, as is using concise engineers' pieces.

I have found Open AI useful in creating job descriptions for the charoty I volunteer for, but useless in writing meaningful prose 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 04:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

So what is GPTZero? Is it meant to be an AI detector? If it is really a bullshit detector, how does it tell human shit from computer shit from the output of real bovines? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon It is reputed to be an AI detector, presumably based upon phraseology. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Katy Krassner

Thank you for your comment about my article draft Katy Krassner. I understand your point and hope you will now move to immediately delete articles about both Tree Paine and Derek Taylor, both of whom do not meet your very narrow definition of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Variety312 (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Variety312 You are welcome to nominate them for deletion yourself. All editors may do this. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Oldcheese

I have reinstated those links, including the dailymail link that was removed. Oldcheese8552 (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Oldcheese8552 Your edit here [1] was entirely disruptive, adding back deprecated sources to The WP:Daily Mail and WP:IMDb. Theroadislong (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Oldcheese8552 I concur. And why you didn't create a new heading is beyond my understanding 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Junbo-Ritsugō

Hello! Recently you reviewed my page Junbo-Ritsugō and accepted it. Since then another editor has come in and at first made good edits. Now I feel they are dragging it and I don't know if they know much about the topic. They won't leave the page alone, but all the sources and wording ect are fine. I am a student, I can't keep editing. Since you were in Wikipedia longer I hope they will respect you. Could you review the page just one more time, and remove anything unnecessary from both me and the other editor. I am asking as they said in the past that the page should be moved back to a draft. They don't seem to hold this sentiment anymore, but it still seems appropriate for you to review this page just one more time and maybe leave a report in the talk page so I know how well you found the page. As well as this, you could also remove irrelevant stuff or change stuff too. I apologise for the inconvenience but unfortunately I feel the other editor is dragging this and as I've said, I'm a student to I don't have time. Although I'm sure your busy to, if you have the free time please re review the page. I apologise Camillz (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Camillz This is very much a WP:Content dispute between two editors. I do not get involved in these. If you cannot sort it out between you on the article talk page then you will need to use WP:DRN.

My sole concern was notability, which I believe it passed when I accepted the draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you! Camillz (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Camillz There are technical reasons why it should not be moved to Draft unilaterally. I have noted those on the talk page.

Content disputes can almost always be solved with the Dispute Resolution process. Since there is never a deadline here I think you will have the time to interleave this with your studies. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! As per the recommendations of the content dispute. If they continue I will wait until they have moved on so this doesn't stress me. Again thank you very much Camillz (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Camillz It's important to realise that the other editor has a firm belief that they are correct, equally as firm as your belief that you are correct. Wikipedia teaches us many interpersonal skills that we can and should translate to our everyday lives. Here, we learn how to interact with the typed word. That works well in any area in our real lives we choose to apply it to. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes of course! I am truly greatful this has been a great help!! Genuinely thank you- Camillz (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Carlos_Botelho

Hey @Timtrent, thank you for your input on my draft page. It's my first article, so the help is appreciated and I'm now seeking input from the English Wikipedia help chat. One question: for the Japanese immigration to Brazil, is the issue that it is too much of the article or that it isn't closely related enough? I can only find sources on Botelho in relation to his work on Japanese immigration to Brazil as it's his main accomplishment that he's known for. Tylermack999 (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tylermack999 If Botelho is not covered in reliable sources independent of the Japanese recruitment, may I suggest covering the recruitment noting Botelho's part in it. I think the immigration may be notable whether the man is or is not.

I may be wrong. I have been wrong before. So follow your instincts. Just try hard not to write a dual purpose article, because those fail. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I can definitely integrate the information on Japanese emigration into Japanese Brazilians, but if I can find better non-wiki sources for Botelho himself could I remove the emigration section and leave the article as a stub about a politician? Tylermack999 (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tylermack999 Absolutely. And you can wikilink that stub to the correct section in Japanese Brazilians. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent I actually just discovered an existing page about Botelho on Portuguese Wikipedia, mainly focusing on his career as a doctor and making a short mention of his political career. How would I go about bringing this page onto English Wikipedia? Tylermack999 (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tylermack999 First please do not use machine translation. It is not allowed. We need human translation. Second, it may surprise you to learn that the Portuguese Wikipedia is almost certainly less strict in inclusion criteria than the English Language Wikipedia, so it may or may not be appropriate here. Third, if and when a translated version arrives here, attribution is required. A useful way is to deploy {{translated page}} with parameters filled out on the talk page of the new article here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tylermack999 If you ask at WP:TEAHOUSE about translation help that may bear fruit 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Seeking suggestions for review

hello sir what more content and/or sections can be added to make this page more suited for a wikipedia article AnirRudh Contri (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@AnirRudh Contri That is entirely your decision, the more so song eI have no idea what article you are talking about. Eb]ven when I know it remains your decision. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)