User talk:Bononia1

This is Bononia1's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Saint Demetrius Cathedral (Vidin) (February 19)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Saint Demetrius Cathedral (Vidin) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for the feedback. I have some questions. What exactly does secondary source mean? What exactly is the problem with the sources I'm using? I would say they are reliable and independent (one is from an official government institution - a ministry). Maybe they are not in-depth? I actually have more sources to use, much more information, much more detail for the article, but I just started the creation. This is just the beginning, not the final look for the article. I will expand and improve the article bit by bit. I would like to know the problem with the current sources so that the next time I work on the article I will not make the same mistake.

Should I put a larger number of sources relative to the length of the article or sources with more detailed information in themselves?

Could you give me an example of specific sources that are suitable for my article and that meet all the requirements? I mean not necessarily about the subject of my article (the particular cathedral), but about any similar article (for example, about another similar cathedral). On Wikipedia, I see a large number of articles that have few sources and also no sources at all, but many such articles have been approved and have been around for years.

My next question is technical: How exactly do I put sources that are from paper books, periodicals, etc., and not just web addresses?

~~Bononia1~~ Bononia1 (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bononia1! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for the feedback. I have some questions. What exactly does secondary source mean? What exactly is the problem with the sources I'm using? I would say they are reliable and independent (one is from an official government institution - a ministry). Maybe they are not in-depth? I actually have more sources to use, much more information, much more detail for the article, but I just started the creation. This is just the beginning, not the final look for the article. I will expand and improve the article bit by bit. I would like to know the problem with the current sources so that the next time I work on the article I will not make the same mistake.

Should I put a larger number of sources relative to the length of the article or sources with more detailed information in themselves?

Could you give me an example of specific sources that are suitable for my article and that meet all the requirements? I mean not necessarily about the subject of my article (the particular cathedral), but about any similar article (for example, about another similar cathedral). On Wikipedia, I see a large number of articles that have few sources and also no sources at all, but many such articles have been approved and have been around for years.

My next question is technical: How exactly do I put sources that are from paper books, periodicals, etc., and not just web addresses?

~Bononia1~

Bononia1 (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Christ the Savior Catholic Cathedral, Vidin[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Christ the Savior Catholic Cathedral, Vidin, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Bononia1. Thank you for your work on Church of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, Burgas. Moriwen, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

This looks like a well-cited article on a notable structure! I think it could use some edits for a more neutral religious and political tone.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Moriwen}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

— Moriwen (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moriwen: Hello. Thank you for the feedback. I don't know exactly what the problem is with the religious and political tone in the article, because I only translated the same article from Bulgarian language. I agree that there may be various elements of information in the article that are not of the necessary neutral religious and political tone, as church matters are often intertwined with history and politics. As an editor, I am more interested in the buildings themselves, in the architecture, and much less in the religious and political significance. So I'm not sure exactly which passages in the article, and exactly how, could be edited to make everything in a neutral religious and political tone.

~~Bononia1~~ Bononia1 (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very reasonable! Thank you for the wonderful translation work, by the way. I'm a little concerned about bits like "Liberation from Turkish slavery" and "Father Georgi's great merit was...", which seem like they're implicitly taking a side, but you've done a great job with the translation and it doesn't need to be your job to do neutrality edits; I've marked the page as reviewed and added a tag so someone can take a look at it later.— Moriwen (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]