User talk:Petepiano

Changes to your user page
Hello Peter! I wanted to let you know why I moved your WPC article from your main user page to a subpage. User pages are generally for information about you (userboxes, brief introductions, etc.) or used by you to do your editing here (like links to reference material, policies, tools, etc.). User space (your top-level user page and all subpages you might create under it) is also a great place to develop full-fledged articles--just like you were doing. While there is nothing wrong with editing other people's user page, it's generally not something done on a regular basis without good reason (except in the case of vandalism, and there's never a good reason for that). So, to help you with developing that article, it seemed better to move it into a subpage that we can both edit without me feeling like I'm breaking a taboo (or other editors wondering why I am editing your user page when they look at the logs). Another nice thing is that when the article is ready for prime time, we can just move it into the main article space, and your user page will remain unbothered.

Speaking of the WPC article itself... You've got a decent start, but as it is right now, I think it would be nominated for deletion (possibly even speedy deletion under criteria 1.11), and probably would be deleted within a week. The reasons are that you have not yet 1) established notability outside of the local community, 2) provided several references from reliable sources that have discussed the church and mentioned why it is important, and also 3) it sounds like an advertisement — not an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles rarely contain mission statements or promote programs (like MAN). I'm sure this sounds depressing, but it's a lot less depressing to hear it now than to release the article and watch it get deleted in a seemingly uncaring and cold-hearted debate about something you worked very hard on creating.

I know the church is notable and historical (the fact that it is on the registry of historical buildings should be enough to make it unquestionably notable if we can eliminate the things that make it sound like marketing material). Look at the criteria for Good Articles and Featured Articles. Use those as a guide for how to continue developing the article. It may never achieve GA or FA status (though GA certainly is possible, and would be really cool!), but starting the article out with those criteria firmly in mind will help to get it there.

Photos will help a lot, too. I have started taking some photos of the incredible stained glass windows in the church when I have a moment. I should take along a tripod and really work on getting some nice, clear shots. Also some of the inside and outside of the church would help. I know that you and Brad have access to a lot of the historical photos of the church. We can scan some of those, too, but we have to be very careful to respect copyright laws. I will be happy to discuss those thorny details with you sometime, too. It's simplest to just take good pictures ourselves so that there's no question about the copyright issue, but obviously for historic photos, that's not possible.

I also assume that Dr. Thompson is a fairly notable person about whom reliable sources can be found to verify that. He doesn't have a Wikipedia biography yet. Probably both should be developed and released together. Each article will strengthen the other. It's a notable church building, with a notable pastor, with a notable pipe organ, with a notable music program, that has had many notable guest speakers and performers visit over the years. I think Dr. Thompson or Brad mentioned that it provided services for the California State Legislature when the Capitol was new. Those are the kinds of things that need to be brought to light. Things like MAN can be worked into the overall article, and could even be linked to without causing much concern if 98% of the rest of the article is unarguably non-promotional. A list of the various clergy would probably be good, too, especially if any of them are particularly notable.

I do not have time to do a lot research or copy writing, but I will be happy to give you support on wiki markup syntax, template design, advice on avoiding potential pitfalls of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and what to do if you somehow run afoul of one of them and the articles are threatened (i.e., how to help fix whatever problems are threatening it so that it doesn't get deleted).

My final bit of advice is to do more editing on some other articles here. The more you edit, read and write on article talk pages, and participate in the idiosyncrasies that make up this bizarre and wonderful site, the easier it is to work productively here. Also skim the links in the welcome banner I added above, because they have a lot of good information in them. And most of all, have fun and don't take anything too seriously here. :-) -- Will scrlt  ( Talk ) 23:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)