CZ Talk:Quick Start

Requesting review

I would appreciate it muchly if anyone would (1) improve this (just don't make it very much longer...it's advertised as being brief...maybe make it shorter!), and (2) say whether you think it should be linked prominently from CZ:Getting Started, CZ:Home, {{awelcome}}, {{ewelcome}}, and (this will have to be a constable) the e-mails we send to new authors and editors. Also, add a link from the main page...

Is it that useful? Basically, I've thought that we badly need this sort of introduction for a long time. I don't know if this does the trick, but the hope is that the informality and encouraging tone will be attractive... --Larry Sanger 19:36, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

'Did you just join?' is American English and this needs to be neutral. Just arrived? - or is that too Brit? Newcomer? I don't know... That's me finished for now anyway, g'night, all... Ro Thorpe 20:24, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

to me, some of the informality comes across as a little condescending, in the way that faculty often get the tone a little wrong when they try to talk like students. "Wrongo, boyo. " Consider the imperfect but straightforward wikipedia page on, "Contributing to Wikipedia", and what I think is the really excellent wikipedia page on writing Your first article. DavidGoodman 21:27, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

I agree about the tone. I took it out of one section I redid (the one about 'can we catch Wikipedia'). J. Noel Chiappa 00:32, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

I took a first pass through. I agree with David about the tone being wrong. I also think we need to focus more on the new users experience and less on our own. Chris Day (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

Yes, we don't want to strike a subtly wrong tone. I had no idea that it came across that way. I've got no problem with Chris' recent edits. On the other hand, we've already got pages like the prosaic pages linked to on Wikipedia, and they clearly aren't doing the trick for us. I.e., there are people still saying, "It's too hard. It's not user-friendly. I don't know what to do. You've got too many instructions." The hope is that directing people immediately to this page will help put them into the right (emboldened and not-too-serious) frame of mind. --Larry Sanger 23:26, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

Is there a convenient, easy to get to place where newcomers can ask basic questions? I know from my experience greeting I've been asked quite a few questions, but it is easy to let some new users slip through the cracks due to time constraints, time spent editing articles, etc. Perhaps even a link on the welcome menu that links to a handful of veteran citizens to answer questions and sort of mentor new users along. --Todd Coles 00:19, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

Any chance you could keep track of what you're asked, so we can make sure the documentation deals with it? J. Noel Chiappa 00:32, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

The ones I could find easily enough I've posted here. I'll try to keep it up to date. --Todd Coles 00:41, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

Better yet, add them to CZ:FAQ, please!!! --Larry Sanger 10:36, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

Of interest. "Don't panic", was also the catchphrase of Corporal Jones in the British TV comedy Dad's Army. Chris Day (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

I wonder if Douglas Adams stole it from them? Seems very plausible, Dad's Army was pretty popular, IIRC. J. Noel Chiappa 10:31, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

I find the question "Did you just arrive?" rather unsettling, presumably because the correct form should be "Have you just arrived?". However, this doesn't sound good in the context, so I haven't changed it. However, I do think that even an informal approach should be grammatically correct, and we should find a better formulation for the opening question! Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10:13, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

Put your thinking cap on... --Larry Sanger 10:36, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

It's kind of like "Fresh off Boat" (FOB) or "Without papers" (WOP) that are both derrogatory. --Robert W King 10:38, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

I've changed it to something I prefer, but maybe others will not like it... Feel free to change it again, preferably to something better! Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:44, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

How about, simply, "Newcomer?" Hayford Peirce 11:45, 22 March 2008 (CDT)

Can we remove the anti-wikipedia question? We have many other pages dedicated to this philosophy and to have it on this page seems like rhetoric. --Robert W King 10:39, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

I don't want to do that. It's the central question that many people have when the arrive here; it is a concern that some people have in explaining to me why they aren't getting involved. If there's a single "get started" page that we are sending people to read, this should be on there. Besides, it's not merely an "anti-Wikipedia question," as if it were gratuitous; it's an explanation of why we are here. --Larry Sanger 12:17, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

I agree with Larry. Many people are going to be like 'why are you bothering, Wikipedia has an un-assailable market position', and we need to explain why this isn't a futile effort. J. Noel Chiappa 15:00, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

Also, Puns aren't funny. --Robert W King 12:51, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

Shakespeare's are, although witty rather than funny...Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:58, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

I added the pun. I thought if we're going with metaphors one pun would not be out of place. I thought it was an eye roll inducing "look its not so dull" here type pun. But if it grates just move it out. I agree we meed to justify how CZ fits in with wikipedia. This does not have to be seen as a antiwikipedia explanation. Chris Day (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

The new top of the How to Edit an Article seems like material that should be called Quick Start more so than the material presented here. David E. Volk 09:05, 22 March 2008 (CDT)

Appearance

I've just looked at the Quick Start page in both IE7 and Firefox and I think it is overbold and amateurish-looking in both browsers. The fonts are too large, the columns are tight and narrow, and the whole impression is that the page is screaming at you. Also, the very top line comes down over on top of the second line.... Hayford Peirce 11:52, 22 March 2008 (CDT)

Hmmm, it looks good on the *Blog* site -- is that where it's supposed to be, or is that just a reference for people who happen to go to the Blog? I'm confused -- it looks fine in one place but not the other. Hayford Peirce 13:30, 22 March 2008 (CDT)