Talk:FIRST Steamworks

Content

Dear @Blackhat999 and Meiloorun:
Based on your userpages, I am presuming that you two are participating in this FRC season or mentoring an FRC team this season. I am not actively involved in FRC, as I am an alumni far away from my former team. As such, I am not very knowledgeable about this game. I plan on only contributing from this point forward by only fixing issues (such as vandalism, point of view, plagiarism, etc.) and adding references. I am going to rely on you two and other active FRC participants and mentors to expand this article. Take your time, as I expect that you might be a little busy until February 21 . Elisfkc (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Elisfkc: I am not involved in FRC in any way, but I have heard of it before. I can help you fix up some technical Wiki stuff, but for anything about the event I am not the right person to ask. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 01:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Elisfkc: I am a first-year member of FRC Team 1533 this year and and I'm planning on continuing to work on this article - when I have time during build season as you mentioned and then really working on it as soon as that's over! Happy editing!, BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the logo on this page is stupidly artifacted/bad. FIRST offers some full-res versions: http://www.firstinspires.org/resource-library/frc/competition-manual-qa-system

I think they are good to use, so I'm swapping out the current one for a better one as soon as I can upload them. AManNamedEdwan (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AManNamedEdwan: reads image details
Ah. I'm new to this. Carry on! AManNamedEdwan (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AManNamedEdwan: not a problem, happens all of the time (I'm pretty sure I did it myself at first too). Elisfkc (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stub improvements

What should/could be done to make this article a non-stub? Should it be done similar to FIRST Stronghold with sections for field, gameplay, etc? Willing to do what what we must (because I can). AManNamedEdwan (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun edits in my sandbox. Feel free to help me out here.
In other news, I've contacted FIRST about using the logos and field drawings in wikipedia. They said that they're looking into it. AManNamedEdwan (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AManNamedEdwan: To be honest, they probably are going to say no (given that the requirement for a larger version of the logo &/or having the field in there is that they release it under a free use license). Also, I'd suggest looking at Aerial Assist as a template more so than FIRST Stronghold. Elisfkc (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, for images (game pieces or competition images), I'm going to be putting them in the category Commons:Category:FIRST Steamworks. Elisfkc (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manual images licensing

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE!

A while back I contacted FIRST about the use of images from the game manual on Wikipedia. Today, after a long wait, I have an official response:

Hi [name redacted]!
I sincerely apologize for the delay in response. It was a wild ride to get to the answer!
You are welcome to publish the images from the manual on your Wiki, but please cite FIRST in this manner:
© 2016 For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST®). Used by special permission. All rights reserved. FIRST is not overseeing, involved with, or responsible for this activity, product, or service.
Please let us know when you get it going. We would love to see it.
If you have other questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to ask.
Thanks!
Jamee

Woohoo! AManNamedEdwan (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AManNamedEdwan: Two things

By saying "All Rights reserved", we cannot use the images, (as far as I can know) because they we need free use of the images.
Forward the email onto permissions-commons@wikimedia.org so we have proof of this permission (in case I'm wrong).

--Elisfkc (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring changes

Hi @Elisfkc:, I appreciate your additions to the scoring section. They make it much more thorough. I just wonder if there's a good reason not to include the scoring tables I originally created, too. I think they are a very handy quick reference for anyone new to FRC this year or who just wants a quick, at-a-glance understanding of what's going on in the game.

Saibot942 (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saibot942: I'm not sure what tables you are referring to. Also, this should not be too in depth. Elisfkc (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Elisfkc: These are the tables I had originally created for the scoring section:

Match Points

Achievement	Auto	TeleOp
Cross the Baseline	5 pts
Fuel in high goal	1 pt ea	1 pt / 3
Fuel in low goal	1 pt / 3	1 pt / 9
Rotor turning	60 pts ea	40 pts ea
Ready for takeoff		50 pts/bot

Ranking Points

Win	2 RP
Tie	1 RP
40 kPa in boiler	1 RP (20 pts in playoffs)
All 4 rotors turning	1 RP (100 pts in playoffs)

Can you see any reason not to include them for quick reference? They're certainly less detailed than the summary paragraphs. Saibot942 (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saibot942: I guess those are ok. Elisfkc (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Who removed the bit about my team???

I wrote a very nice piece on how my team (5897 'rIGS') won the chaiman's award. What the literal frak was wrong with that??? anyone going to own up????? Or possibly put it back,hmmm??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy Minh (talk • contribs) 09:42, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

@Crazy Minh: As you can see in the history, I removed it. It is not encyclopedic to the article as a whole, you have no sources for it (which are needed even if you have first hand knowledge) and you have conflict of interest. If the section had been about 2614 (Mountaineer Area Robotics) and 3132 (Thunder Down Under), who won the World Championships Chairmen's Awards, that would have been fine. However, the biggest issue is that it is about a team that won a regional award, when there are over 50 other teams that also won the same award and also don't have or need a section on this article. Elisfkc (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

well damm you too!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy Minh (talk • contribs) 06:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality

I've worked on this article quite a bit and I'm wondering if this is still a Start-class article (I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I might as well do it) and if it's now a B-level article. Thanks! Also, I italicised 4188 because they were not originally in the team that actually qualified, they were a reserve. Maxman013 (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]