Talk:FIRST

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FIRST is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, an attempt to standardise coverage of Robotics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] FIRSTwiki Section

I deleted the FIRSTwiki section because the FIRSTwiki website does not really merit its own section - it isn't even an official FIRST website. I guess it should stay that way (there is still a link to it in the "external links" section) unless someone has a reason that there should still be a big section about it. Scottmso 03:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Split

This article needs to be split into four: the FLL content needs to be merged to FLL, FRC and Vex need their own pages, and this page should be about the more administrative details. I'll work on this eventually. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 06:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This article still assumes that the FRC comeptition is the de facto part of FIRST, when it is only one of the puzzle pieces that make up FIRST. FIRST Lego League and FIRST Vex Challenge seem to be given inferior coverage in this article, while all the details about FRC are at the top of the article. FRC, FVC, FLL, and JFLL need equal coverage. This issue needs to be addressed. -Art
I have done the split. FRC and FLL are now in their own articles proper with the proper split tags. I think we need a picture of an FLL match or robot to place alongside the FLL section. We need to make this page bigger, with more sections about FIRST the organization and not just robotics: history, politics, funding, who runs it, etc.
Bongle 12:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pages and Spam

VEX Robotics and VEX Labs need their own pages. Also - aren't those unofficial forums considered spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoughtfix (talk • contribs) 15:09, May 5, 2006

ChiefDelphi is an integral part of the FIRST community. I would venture on WP:IAR here and keep it, even if under the rules, it may be considered spam. It is most definitely not, however. Just browse to the site, and you will see notables from all around the FIRST community posting there. Sometimes, you even see Regional Director Jason Morella posting there. Copysan 23:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Chiefdelphi forumns is the second most authority on information concerning the first community, right behind the FIRST website itself. Godloveslamb 06:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link growth

The link section of this article is getting unnecessarily large. Is it really necessary to have so many links to scouting sites? --Shimei 18:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a good question. I bet a lot of the anonymous IPs are simply promoting their own sites. I don't know if many teams even use such sites. I know my team uses its own scouting. I won't delete them, but I won't stop anybody either. Copysan 05:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the links that don't provide useful information about FIRST (e.g. scouting links, misc. forums, etc.). I'm not sure if the link to FIRST Wiki is particularly relevant to this article (last I saw it was just a list of FRC teams), but I left it in there for now. --Shimei 06:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woodie and Dave

I didn't see this article mention Dave Lavery or Woodie Flowers anywhere. I would expect to see them mentioned, considering their critical roles in the development of the organization and of the games each year. Does anyone else think they deserve a mention? Verkhovensky 20:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The beauty of wikipedia is that anybody (mostly) can contribute to articles, so any one editor's lack of expertise in a topic is made up by another editor's. Copysan 23:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italics

Does FIRST need to be italicized in every instance? Copysan 05:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would. It's for consistency reasons.. and it is an acronym after all, no? --Knippschild 04:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Where does it say we need to italicize every acronym? Copysan 20:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It's done to distinguish between the word first and the organization For Inspiration and Recognition in Science and Technology. 69.142.166.254 20:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought that's what capitalizing all of the letters in the acronym was for. Verkhovensky 23:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
FIRST requires the italics use across the board now as a image thing. I don't have any documentation on hand, but the guidance from HQ was to italicize it in all literature. JWetzel 01:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that because FIRST wants it's name italicized means we need to italicize it every time. FIRST is doing it to improve their brand recognition by making their name stand out and Wikipedia is not their AD agency. --Matthew 15:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the IP (24.62.200.110) that did the italicizing, it comes from New Hampshire. Perhaps somebody at FIRST is editing their own page. ;-) In any case, I'm going to revert the italics. FIRST and first are easily distingiushed in that one is capitalized and one isnt. WP:MoS says nothing about using italics in this way, and Wikipedia is not subject to the whims of an ad agency, as User:Imjustmatthew put it. Copysan 20:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teams

Shouldn't there be a section on the current teams that participate in the competition? Also the winning teams of each competition and the location of regionals and districts? I'm not sure how to group those exactly, though.

Since there are (according to this article) 1300 teams that participate in FIRST, I'm not sure that'd be useful. Also, most of the 2004+ games have info on which teams won which regional. As for info about regionals, that'd probably go into the actual competition page (i.e. FRC or FVC or FLL) Bongle 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Details

I agree with Bongle's last edit. The game changes every year, and everything from weight limits to height restrictions to alliance makeup can change. Nailing down a specific weight or other such detail in the article is misleading. And these details simply seem to change to match whatever game is current. We need to have lasting descriptions because of the variable nature of the rules, and I think Bongle has found a suitable solution. Verkhovensky 19:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganized information into proper sections

The introduction portion of the article contained a lot of information that was either stated later in the sections about the competition, or it belonged in those sections. I reorganized that information and removed any redundant information. —The preceding Duggan 04:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on the pictures

I have noticed a lot of change going on with the picture of the representative robot for the FRC. Editors, please remember that Wikipedia is for information, not for promotion. That is reserved for other forums. If needed, I believe involved editors should decide on critera for an "ideal" picture of a robot describing a FIRST game. If we do that, I propose that a critera should be: "the robot must be in active play of the game. (ie. it is scoring, or attempting to, or doing something related to the game's objectives)" Copysan 05:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:FIRST logo.jpg

Image:FIRST logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A fair-use rationale has now been added to the image. Dr. Cash 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Winners at Regionals

The consensus of editors of FIRST articles needs to decide whether winners of regionals should be included in the articles of that year's game. We're already getting slight revert warring going on, especially on Aim High. I would venture to say that the regional winners are unneeded because they dont really add any information to the article. Copysan (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree with the removal of them, though I think it'll be a pain to keep them off for good. A regional win is a big deal for a team, and you'll definitely have people trying to add their team on. Bongle (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)