User talk: Spiny Norman
Recent Article Additions[edit source]
I see that you're new to the wiki. Welcome! Another thing I see, however, is that your recent influx of new pages aren't, in most cases, totally respecting our rules and guidelines. I say that because they often lack references, proper formatting, formal language and, perhaps most aggravating, they have little to no content. It would be appreciated if you, before going on to submit several pages at once, read the aforementioned rules in addition to other articles on here so you get used to the formatting and expected quality of our pages.
- I'm happy to hear suggestions for more content. The trouble is this: A 25 minute pilot that is unavailable is hard to keep writing about; also when I look at other pages, the more information they contain, the more it becomes unclear where that information came from and if it's reliable (on a side note, formal language is another one that doesn't appear to have been applied anywhere). Looking back, I certainly could have expanded "Rear guard" with some additional data about the script, links to video clips, and a title card screenshot, but I see you have deleted it. Spiny Norman (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey man, I know SenaUW has already talked to you about this, but your stuff isn't exactly what I would call "quality articles." When you make a title, you have to put something like Snavely (lost pilot of Fawlty Towers; 1980s) or something like that. Your influx of Needing Work level articles are not exactly helpful. I see you have been looking at other articles, and some articles I suggest you read are Moabit Däftäre (lost prison-written notebooks; 1944) and Figment: Language Arts Through Imagination (partially lost series of educational Disney short films; 1988-1989) as both are very good examples of a quality article. One more tip when working on an article is to know beforehand whether your article will have many references or much content as both are acceptable, while much content and a small to decent amount of references is acceptable. I'm sorry if this post if found as repetitive or annoying, but I just want to give some tips on some of the ways you can make a shite article a good one. Good luck! --Tripson (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am open to suggestions on for example Beane's of Boston - I myself would think that that is in itself eligible for a page; but I couldn't really make any more of it before it becomes irrelevant or unverified, AKA talking out of my @r$3. (Once I learn how to change the title of a page and how to change links into cited references, that of course can be done.) Spiny Norman (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)