Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Awards)
Jump to: navigation, search

Boxing barnstar[edit]

How about a boxing barnstar? I can see it, a red glove sticking out of the star! Antonio Jenny's Lover Martin knock me out 14;15, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

  • I am curious: what purpose would such a barnstar serve on Wikipedia? For what behavior/ act would it be awarded? KDS4444Talk 00:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It could be used to award editors who make significant improvements to boxing-related articles, spend a considerable amount of time maintaining stated articles, etc. NorthAmerica1000 00:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Too many similar Barnstars (3.0), ultimatum[edit]

As I've stated in the past, too many general-use Barnstars, and i doubt many people use every single one. We should minimize the amount of Barnstars with ones with broader scope rather than having specific uses. I will provide which ones show


  • {{The Surreal Barnstar}} is about adding flavor and acting as a wild card to the community. {{The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar}} is about being a kind editor when its not being asked.{{The Barnstar of Good Humor}} humor to the community. {{The Barnstar of Integrity}} despite having an image of a scale to imply neutrality, it really is about the editor who has integrity, not only that but just really goes further into implying this is about general good character by stating "Or, more simply, a stand-up guy/gal". Both the Good Humor and The Random Acts of Kindness are Barnstars that have a smiley face which i believe shows a good sign for character in an editor. All four of them involve "Character" of the editor more than contributions to articles. I suggest merging all three that encompasses humor, unique flavor, honor/integrity, and overall kindness as the scope and calling it the The Good Character Barnstar.
  • {{The Editor's Barnstar}} is about general edits. Something that really doesn't need to be given a specific award. {{The Original Barnstar}} is a barnstar awarded for "anything", so why should general edits be an award? I suggest merging it with the Original Barnstar.
  • {{The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar}} is rewarded to those who work tirelessly and endlessly on the more laborious or repetitive of Wikipedia tasks. The {{The Tireless Contributor Barnstar}} to especially tireless Wikipedians who contribute an especially large body of work without sacrificing quality. Note they both are about general edits although highlight the efforts with the word "tireless". The tireless Barnstar puts a nudge further by expanding on it, but not by much. I believe the Working Wikipedian should be merged with Tireless Contributor. The difference will be very minor.

Here's only a fraction of what could be done that can easily work. We keep one or the other.

  • {{The Barnstar of Recovery}} and {{The Rescue Barnstar}} are both about rescuing articles from deletion. In fact both of them are severely close in the table, which makes me wonder what editors were thinking when they included a second one.

Anyways this is what i can find, if no one is keen on merging barnstars, then my last proposal is moving some of these specific Barnstars down to personal use section once more "general" barnstars are available for "general use". However i personally believe it would benefit more if they were merged. Lucia Black (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I have to look closer at the first one and the last one but agree with the ones in between so I support the merging of these barnstars to a single one. Also, I think we should notify the Village pump for broader community input but want your opinion on that before I make a post.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I mentioned this on my talk page for my stalkers and was told this is under the scope of WP:WER so I have placed a notice there.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What problem is the proposal solving? --NeilN talk to me 01:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
My guess is that it attempts to address the issue of redundant barnstars that are almost exactly the same. I would not call this a problem needing to be solved but simply editorial decisions being proposed.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason to reduce the number of barnstars, and no benefit to a lengthy discussion about it. Why can't we have 1000 barnstars if people are motivated to design them? And what's up with the word "ultimatum"? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I kinda agree in a way, but also agree with the OP that there are redundant barnstars that cover the same thing. The reason we cannot have any barnstar that anyone creates is because, to include them we need a consensus. I can create any barnstar I wish, but getting it on the list here requires a consensus of editors. The only thing I disagree with fully is that there is always a benefit to a lengthy discussion even if only to come out with no consensus. You are asking the wrong editor about the header title. I was as confused as you.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The issue is best addressed, IMO, by merging all barnstars into badges and implementing a system that allows for manual and automatic awarding. Barnstars should operate as badges and existing badges should have the same weight as barnstars. Finally, a new tab should be created that simply says "Badges" that will automatically update itself, so no need for editors to maintain subpages about awards. DYK, FA, GA, and other types of recognition and awards should be rolled into this system as well, providing an overview similar to the display in the supercount/user analysis tool. I realize that certain members of the community have been fighting this obvious transition for years, but it's time to do the right thing and automate the process for awarding, distributing, and viewing badges, barnstars, and other achievements. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Not a fan of this idea. From what I've seen, badges are given out for meeting a concrete goal. Barnstars seem to be a more elaborate way of saying thank you. --NeilN talk to me 04:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
      • No, I have a badge from the teahouse just for being a volunteer there. I really like what Viriditas is suggesting and agree it is time to start advancing the project.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Which is a concrete action (I'm trying to find the right terminology here). You get a badge for performing a specific action. --NeilN talk to me 04:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
          • I really think that is splitting hairs to be honest. I am not on the volunteer page list now, but I am not giving the badge back. LOL! But seriously, no, just being on a list is not a concrete action. not in the slightest. Basically all one has to do is be a part of a group and there is a lot that can be said about how little...or nothing, editors on these sort of lists really do. So...no, not concrete at all.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The benefit from lowering the large amount of Barnstars will be for the purpose of making them easier to use when others want to reward an editor and can't find that specific barnstar (because the barnstars available aren't broad enough). If people want a more specific usage, then they should be made for personal-use. But with that said, i dont think wikkipedia should promote them here in general use. i also highly disagree with the idea of allowing general-use barnstars just because people are willing to create them. Unfortunately, this list can be a little unwieldy with some of these designed with more specific tastes. Rather than becoming a general-use.

The problem with the wanting to create more and more barnstars is that it can be counter-intuitive, they are after all, designed to being used. And we should design the best barnstars to be used for the entire community and not get lost. I will discuss badges in the other section. but you get the point. Lucia Black (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose: Besides the offensive use of the word "ultimatum" which is 1000% in conflict with consensus building, it is amazing to me that this discussion is happening here on the very Talk page for the WikiProject Wikipedia Awards. Apparently some people have forgotten what it says right at the top of the project page:

GOALS:

  1. Keep all awards in a tidy, easy-to-navigate directory.
  2. Help users who are keen to make new awards.
  3. Maintain all awards and templates related to them.
  4. Promote the use of Barnstars and other awards throughout Wikipedia.
  5. Make sure that all awards are used in the proper manner.

This proposal does nothing to further ANY of those goals. Goals built by a community consensus, not some ultimatum. It certainly does not "Help users who are keen to make new awards.". The term "easy to navigate" does not mean small or minimal. "Maintain" does not mean eliminate. And as far as "Make sure that all awards are used in the proper manner." consider the following:

  • People want to be recognized for the work they did, not for some over-generalized vague concept of the work they did. I saw a discussion on a proposed Barnstar for Chess and the argument against it was essentially "Just use the Barnstar for toys and games". To some people Chess is serious business and intellectual work. Giving an editor's contributions to improving Chess articles a "Thank-you for helping with toys & games" would offend the crap out of many of them. Hardly a "proper" award.

Certainly eliminating duplicates and redundant Barnstars (by merging them via consensus, not deleting them) is a good idea but trying to limit Barnstars to only broad-scopes is a horrible idea. The fact is that this Project is charged with "helping people develop the creation and use of Barnstars and other awards". To those that say we need to reduce the number of Barnstars in order to make them more usable I say that is an effort to lower the river instead of raise the bridge. If you don't like the answer the solution is not to change the question, it is to look for a better answer.

Not being one to address a problem without trying to provide a solution here is a suggestion to simplify navigation and usage of Barnstars. Ask each Project team to choose or develop a Barnstar appropriate for their community. While anyone can participate in the discussion who better to develop consensus on a "proper" award than the focused editors of that community? After selecting a Barnstar have the WikiProject template for that Project modified to include something like (using Chess as an example):

  • If you feel an editor has made an outstanding contribution to this article please recognize them with a Chess Barnstar. Simply add {{subst:Chess Barnstar|1=Put your message here. ~~~~}} to the talk page of the user you wish to award it to. If you feel their contributions goes beyond just the Chess WikiProject then visit [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards]] and select a more appropriate form of recognition.

Now every time a user goes to a particular talk page they will see the "best choice" for Barnstar and be routed here as well.
As far as I can tell my counter-proposal/suggestion does support all five goals of this project and promotes this Project too! Aguy2014 (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Barnstars do absolutely no harm to our encyclopedic content, and provide a nice way to reward people when they've done a good job. The wide variety allows us to recognise particular contributions, but this proposal would remove that ability. For example, under this proposal {{The Surreal Barnstar}}, {{The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar}}, {{The Barnstar of Good Humor}} and {{The Barnstar of Integrity}} would be merged into a single "Good Character Barnstar". It seems to me that being surreal, being kind, being of good humour and having integrity are all different things, and I'd prefer to be able to recognise these separately. Similar reasoning applies in the other proposed cases. If you think there are too many barnstars, the obvious thing to do is not to award them. For example, I tend to feel that it is better to abstain from hot drinks, so I'm more likely to give people some yummy brownies than a beer, though I'm not dogmatic about this. The nice thing about having a wide range of awards is that it adds flexibility. RomanSpa (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Mixed Support I should open by saying that Ultimatum was maybe a poor choice of wording. I think it would be wise to amend the title to remove that, as a number of folks are likely to take issue with anything titled Ultimatum, just on the principle of the matter. That said, I do think this proposal has merit. I would generally support the merging of some of the redundant barnstars. Of those listed I would specifically support: The Editor's Barnstar → The Original Barnstar, The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar → The Tireless Contributor Barnstar, Red Link Removal Barnstar → The Wikilink Barnstar, The Graphic Designer Barnstar → The Graphic Designer's Barnstar (though this one appears to have already been merged), The Barnstar of Recovery → The Rescue Barnstar. I think that the The Surreal Barnstar, The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar, The Barnstar of Good Humor, and the The Barnstar of Integrity are valuable and different from each other. Likewise I think the The Redirect Barnstar servers a different purpose than the Red Link Removal Barnstar and The Wikilink Barnstar do. The Anti-Flame Barnstar and The Civility Barnstar are likewise different. I would support Aguy2014's proposal along with Viriditas general badge system idea. Zell Faze (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Aguy2014: You're trying to make it look like the main argument is "less" barnstars equals helping the people use them better, but its not about quantity, its about "quality". If we have a large amount of insignificant barnstars, then people will follow the trend of continuously wanting to make more for more heavily specific and heavily similar barnstars simply because they see the large range of them, rather than a well-meaningful barnstar that can cover more than one specific thing. Besides my main point was to merge the ones that are too similar in meaning to serve like a great reward, not remove them. If you strongly oppose then rather than fighting the principle behind the proposal (which again, you twisted the point), fight the specifics like most people have said. For example:

Why should we have three different barnstars for such specific things when a more general barnstar will have more meaning? And before you disagree, i'll provide an example: If an editor recognized me fixing typos, and gave me the barnstar specifically for typos, although i would appreciate it, i would also feel disappointed that was the only thing they noticed, and the barnstar shows how minuscule it seems to be. And even if i did focused only on typos in my editing, a barnstar that recognizes that i am not just fixing Typos, i am "copy-editing" articles, shows greater value for my contribution.

The alternate proposal you provided is already available, the first option is to make a directory, which really we already have through WP:AWARD and we have this page as well. The problem with the table isn't that its too long, its that it contains several Barnstars for similar things, like i said before. So scrolling through, members will incline to look for more specific barnstars as they find specific barnstars (because the general barnstars aren't made available or just downgraded by the other specific ones). Helping users are keen to making barnstars isn't an issue at all. the third option is not so different from the first. the fourth is available with the new WWikiLove tab when you go to a talkpage. The fifth isn't related to the issue at hand. Unless you want someone to moderate all the awards being used and if their used appropriately, this really means more extra work than necessary. my proposal is about having less work by offering more broader barnstars rather than over specific barnstars (at least in this talkpage for general use, my alternate proposal is still about moving these specific ones in personal-use section, while creating more "general-use" barnstars for "general-use" section. It really comes down to common sense.

@RomanSpa: I believe too many barnstars in the general-use section are hindering the usage, having constant proposals for more general use, and some people are starting to propose the exact same thing, people who are not up to date might support it if their not knowing. Right now its not whether this is a good idea (because it is a good idea), this is whether you like it or not, which many members have admitted that this is a matter of liking/not liking it and feel that is reason enough because its not a space that affects articles, it affects the community. But really, this proposal will provide more results. And if you say "don't use them" what you're really saying is " i want people to note use these barnstars, i want barnstars to just be an art project rather than a real award" and if you're not saying that then give me an objective reason why the proposed barnstars shouldn't be merged individually. Some members enjoy giving brownies, beers, or tea. Everyone is welcomed to do so, but notice they are under personal-usage. My Alternate proposal is still moving the specific barnstars into personal-use when more broader barnstars are made.

@Zellfaze: The Ultimatum is there for a reason, its either this passes or an alternative. And i have an alternative ready to be shared. But i'm still giving barnstars a chance. I proposed an alternative, more general award. Some members actually opposed it for the reason that they will catch on better than barnstars. Lucia Black (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"Ultimatum" is a completely counterproductive word to use here, and I encourage you to withdraw it, Lucia Black, since you have no power to enforce any such ultimatum. There is a very old phrase that says, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." There is nothing wrong with our current array of barnstars, and the comment about a chess barnstar is very apt. Topic specific barnstars can be very motivating, and giving a generic "toys and games" barnstar to a chess editor is a bad idea. And so on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The system is definitely broken and i have provided reasons why. the Barnstars have becoming closer and closer to the personal-use awards, meaning there's no distinction and i'm only here to make the distinction stronger. Toys aren't Games. But chess is a game. A barnstar for games is not offensive for someone who has been working on Chess-related articles. In fact, it shows broader scope, that the editor is recognized to being able to fix more articles not-related to just chess. So similar with my more realistic situation about typo/copy-editing Barnstar, it shows greater value even if the contribution was smaller. Still like i said my alternate proposal is moving these too specific/too similar barnstars to personal usage when more broader barnstars are made.
With that said, i will NOT remove "ultimatum", even if members don't like it. and they are currently being tested by it. My ultimatum is this. Make appropriate changes so that we get less tedious request for too similar barnstars and too specific or an alternative reward-system will be implemented by me that offers this. If you don't like my alternative, you dont have to use it the same way i dont have to use barnstar, but i've seen "fear" in this proposal before because it actually looks like a viable alternative that can overshadow barnstars. Lucia Black (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@Lucia Black: What you meant to say in earlier comment, of course, is not "because it is a good idea", but "because I think it is a good idea". As for the possibility that having too many barnstars hinders their use, you're quite entitled to believe this, but I prefer to believe things only once there's some evidence to support them. What evidence do you have to support this claim? There's also a fault in your reasoning where you say "if you say 'don't use them' what you're really saying is 'i want people to not[e] use these barnstars'", which I think arises from a mis-reading of my comment above; for clarity I'll repeat the comment here, but with an additional phrase which should make my point clearer: If you think there are too many barnstars, the obvious thing to do is for you personally not to award themthe ones you don't like or think are surplus to requirements. I'm quite happy to support the idea of more general barnstars, should you wish to create them, but I see no need to remove the existing ones, which allow for nuance where this is wanted. I'm also not in favour of anything that retrospectively "downgrades" existing awards. If somebody has received (say) the "Random Acts of Kindness" barnstar, to subsequently move this barnstar from the "general-use" section to the "personal-use" section seems to me like a devaluation. I, and I suspect (from observing their actions) many other people, tend to use "general" awards more sparingly than "personal" ones, and your proposal would have the effect of retrospectively reclassifying people's awards. This sort of thing tends to be unpopular in the real world, and I can understand that the same might be true in Wikipedia. Historically, the best approach to pruning an awards system has usually been to let the less-used awards just fade away over time.
Finally, the "objective reason" why the proposed barnstars shouldn't be merged is simply this: I believe it is better to award for specifics, rather than generalities. I have two reasons for this: first, because I intuitively feel that praise is more valued if it is specific, because the recipient knows that this means I've been paying attention; second, because there is good evidence that the more specific we can be, the better. Your claim that a more general barnstar will have more meaning seems to be objectively false. If you really want to make people feel rewarded and motivated, specificity is the way to go. RomanSpa (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I "know" its a good idea. its "practical" and has "common sense" behind it and if you look into the proposal "in detail". And this isn't about whether i use them, but finding a way to promote the usage of more barnstars. And if you don't agree, i would like you to argue with reason for each specific part of my proposal why each one is bad. I know you haven't looked into the proposal in detail because there are two barnstars are about saving articles from deletion. Different name but the act is still the same: saving an article from deletion. I feel people aren't looking at it objectively by actively comparing each point i provided. this is an argument behind your own personal principles over the actual benefits. Those who supported only had mixed support because the majority is more beneficial while some were controversial. For general-use barnstars, it would benefit more to making them more "general" barnstars. Members will recognize the difference between a general use and a personal use and request far less to be used as general. And honestly, if you want results, give it a chance.
i believe overly-specific barnstars have a place, just not in general-use. Some of these Barnstars really do lean toward personal-use. With that said, the study you showed was more based towards children and how to use topical compliments to help the child progress. So they are not the same thing as Barnstars (showing appreciation). And even then, the comparison of over-generalizing: "you're a smart girl" over the more clear and distinct: "You did a good job at reading" isn't a counter argument for having more general barnstars. I believe these barnstars are even more similar such as they are saying "You did a good job at reading words" "You did a Good Job at reading numbers" My proposal isn't about over-generalizing, otherwise we would only need just one Barnstar, the Original Barnstar. But its not about over specifying either.
My proposal has another benefit. My proposal not only makes it easier to navigate and find the one you need, but it also makes them less like "gift-card" and really truly upgrades them to being real "awards" for members to give (whether their contribution was big or small). How you may ask? Lets put in a hypothetical, realistic, situation. You have been working great with number-related problems at your job (even though you have contributed to other), what would be better from your boss? A personalized thank you via e-mail for every specific situation? Or a real plaque that honors all the number-related accounts. Granted plaques often aren't always that specific, but topical enough to know they been truly appreciated. Now, there's one thing you're forgetting barnstars have. They offer additional commentary alongside it. So even if Cullen328 example of Games barnstar would offend a Chess-oriented user (it wont), even if the study you showed was acceptable to every degree, this doesn't stop members from adding commentary to specify these things. Which shows Barnstars were designed to being a little more broader. Would you complain for receiving a "Copy-editing Award" over a "Typo" award even though its the same act of copy-editing? ones more broad. What about the "Eraser Barnstar" that only action is reducing space? Would you be offended by receiving the "Barnstar of Recovery" when you wanted the "Rescue Barnstar" even though both are about saving articles?
These awards get specific to the point of feeling arbitrary, and members continue to Propose even more arbitrary awards time and time again. Personally I've been awarded by the random acts of kindness, it doesn't mean anything to me if it either gets merged to a hypothetical "Good Character" award or if it gets moved to the personal-use. Honestly, merging some for a broader usage would benefit people. The barnstars given to others will still exist only change in name and image. Objectively it wont be bad.
This isn't abut making them too broad, this is about merging the incredibly similar. IF you're not happy about that, the other option is moving them to personal-use. and i know thats a worse option because it doesn't steamline the broader ones. What would benefit the barnstars is truly putting "value" to them. if you feel random acts of kindness being placed in personal use is devalue, it shows a side to you. Put things in perspective. Lucia Black (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thankyou for conceding that there are two options, merging and userfying. But please be aware that there are other options including no change, and trying to set the debate as between two options that some see as retrograde is not a good way to convince people that your proposals are worth spending time on let alone worth supporting. ϢereSpielChequers 07:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As long as they're "free" and "optional", this is just creating problems and arguments where there's no real burden. As someone above said, let there be 1,000 general ones, if that's what people want. There's no detriment. Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment that's not what people get, even when they want it. Many have proposed several different yet overly similar Barnstars....i'm here to optimize the usage, regardless of what people want because in the end, if this passes, they WILL bite the bullet. And right now, Barnstars are the only option to giving any official award to members (for now). Lucia Black (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose A solution in search of a problem. For goodness sake, go and edit some articles. John (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose What John said. Way too much seriousness for a function that's supposed to be informal and engender good feelings. --NeilN talk to me 14:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment i moved your comments to a place where the specifics "aren't" currently being discussed. if you want to vote on the bottom, you'll have to vote every individual aspect of why its wrong (in detail). The bottom section is to discuss why the proposal is bad not as a whole, but individual pieces of it. I don't want any editor to derail the discussion for the sake of coming off as "we're consensus, nuff said". And if you claim you're not, the easy way out is looking at each individual. Lucia Black (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No need to inhibit the variety of barnstars; this variety allows users to pick and choose based upon specificity, rather than having their choices unnecessarily limited. NorthAmerica1000 00:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand the issue[edit]

Or maybe, i should say "don't turn it into something else". The issue is definitely about having "too similar" barnstars, I will not discuss about having less, or more barnstars because it is not about quantity, its the quality of the barnstars by adding more value to some by "merging" them together or removing the exact copies. This isn't about the creativity of others, everyone is free to create their own personal, barnstar as random, as ambiguous, and as arbitrary as they like but not all of them have the merit of being for general-use. I'm also not going to listen to "if you don't like them, don't use them" because this isn't about whether i want to use them or not, its whether they are even usable in the first place. And to be honest, i'm having a hard time using them, some are too specific, i would need 3 barnstars just to cover that one action that editor does. From here on out, lets talk about the specifics about the proposal. Lets treat them individually.


  • First and foremost, the Editors Barnstar seems to be a Barnstar for general editing, which honestly, seems like that's all we do regardless if beneficial or not. Why would we need a Barnstar for doing such a ambiguous thing? This barnstar is too broad, it can cover as much as the Original Barnstar. Which is why i proposed to be merged to it.
  • The proposal of having a "Good Character" barnstar by merging 3 that are good-character-related puts emphasis on the person that they have a good character by having any of the traits of the merged barnstars. Even if one specifies the specific quality they wanted to highlight in the commentary, the award shows more meaning. If not all of them should be merged, then we should work on making some the others more distinct and not based entirely on a good character. I realize good humor, and random acts of kindness are two different traits but lean toward the same impression of having good character. Honestly "random acts of kindness" isn't that great of an idea. I believe many members have done numerous amounts of good edits, its a matter of what another editor classifies as a personal kindness to them and as "random". Which really is too specific for general-use. It really does seem like personal use. The one of humor seems to fit in closer to WP:Department of Fun, also not much general usage (at least i believe general usage should be streamlined to be more on trying to improve wikipedia in some fashion) The Surreal Barnstar is very ambiguous, either give it meaning or drop it completely. And again, not about whether i like it or not, its whether it has a usage at all that editors can award when appropriate.
  • The Eraser, and the Typo barnstar are encompassed by the Copy-editing Barnstar, a barnstar with great value and should be used more often for small and big contributions. Do we need a typo Barnstar? Do we need an eraser barnstar? How much value do they have individually? If the question is about desire than necessity, then lets put it in perspective: Will it matter in the end? No. but it will streamline the barnstar by a margin, noticeable or not.
  • Here is the Red Link Barnstar and Wikilink Barnstar, wouldn't it benefit more if those were merged together to involve any link cleaning up? It puts more "value" into the barnstar as it covers a general topic. What personal benefit will anyone have to specifically target for removing red links and adding wikilinks when appropriate individually? A Barnstar that covers both shows greater importance to both sides. Individually they are incredibly minuscule.
  • For the most part The Rescue Barnstar and The Barnstar of Recovery are exactly the same thing. They are both meant for those who save Barnstars from deletion. Its best to keep one, otherwise editors will believe they can request a Barnstar for the same thing only with a different name and different design.
  • The Anti-Flame War is a specific usage for saying they were civil by not flaming others. The Civility Barnstar awards for general civility which in turn cannot be awarded if someone is "flaming" as "not flaming" and being "civil" go hand in hand. Although both sound mildly different as one is more broader and the other is more specific, if you think about it both is awarding for something they are doing and not doing. Different names for the same thing if you really think about it.


  • New The Da Vinci Barnstar is the exact same thing as the Technical Barnstar, i'm not sure why there are alternatives for the same thing. The Technical Barnstar seems more accurate and clear,not only that but its used in the WikiLove options, so the oddball is really the Da Vinci Barnstar. It should be merged to the Technical one. Once again, its these type of situations that make other editors believe its ok to have the same award, different name for the sake of showing off their photoshop skills.
  • New The {{Barnstar Barnstar}} and {{The Barnstar Creator's Barnstar}} are both barnstars for those who create Barnstars. For the same reasons as Da Vinci/Technical and Rescue/Recovery we should really keep just one or the other and merge one with the other.

This is really about steamlining the general use. I would like to know why individually what is wrong with each idea. I feel too many people try to fight the principle behind it. But really, the individual issues speak for themselves more than the main goal. Lucia Black (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes some barnstars are similar, but do the costs of that such as a few electrons outweigh the advantages? There are several advantages to the current approach, firstly people can give and receive a wider range of barnstars rather than continually receive the same ones. Secondly there are likely to be more barnstars awarded if we have more designs because awarders won't feel constrained not to award a barnstar that someone already has. Thirdly some people like to create specific barnstars, if we move to some organised top down system that deprecates particular barnstars we reject their work. Lastly ultimatums are bad, but bureaucracies are even worse. ϢereSpielChequers 07:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This isn't about how much barnstars take up space in wikipedia. so i will not be touching that. if you're continuously receiving the same ones its probably because you're getting rewarded for the same little things. So with that said if you're constantly getting reward for bigger things, it wont feel as bad for getting rewarded for smaller things. Its not an issue of getting rewards its how many rewards you get for the level of each contribution. some feel more like a hassle than an award. giving barnstars mroe meaning will also affect that positively. Again this is designed to optimize the usage, not downgrade it. And awarders feeling constraint isn't really my problem or yours. I'm not here to please the masses who want to do what they want regardless if that's what they need. If you want to have WP:ILIKEIT into this, i'm not going to bother. If we have barnstars with broader coverage, their not going to be "restrained" at all, all it is is less barnstars but all the topics are still there, only less specific. Some are too small too feel like awards (and if its really about the thought that counts, then no one should mind if these too specific ones get moved to personal-use). basically, they will have all the barnstars they need to reward a user. Lastly, if you know what the ultimatum is, you will know why i will not change it. So i will not reply again unless you have a specific problem with a specific issue i provided. Lucia Black (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • It is very difficult for me to not see much of the last comment above as indicating the person making it has somehow determined that their own views are somehow binding on others. That really isn't the way we operate here. I said some time ago on my user page I don't want any more myself, but I can see how for some editors getting different looking awards, even if they are all for the same sort of activity, might provide an additional, possibly small, incentive that repeated reception of the identical template they have already received might not give them, and anything that helps keep editors here is a net plus. In fact, I came to this page to propose a whole new group of awards, one for each species of Wikipedia:WikiFauna. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, not talking about this. This will be the last time i talk about subjective principle over objective issues. Wikifauna is more of a side=project rather than trying to contribute to better wikipedia. so thats not necessary. and as you can see these are the type of barnstars we will be getting each time we promote some obscure or arbitrary award in the general-use. If we streamline the barnstars, it will be "obvious" to first-time editors who want to use barnstars which is general-use and which is personal-use. Lucia Black (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Protocol for WikiProject Wikipedia Awards[edit]

What's the typical protocol for the creation of a new WikiProject barnstar? Proposal within a project first and then getting someone to create it? Is there a list of users who would be willing to design barnstars? Upjav (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoever wants one to be designed, will be willing ot. there is no straight-out protocal. you could however ask a member who made one in the past to make one for you. Lucia Black (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
To answer your question, perhaps a bit belatedly, WikiProjects are governed by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Simply put, WPWPA exists simply to help WikiProjects connect to graphic artists (It seems Lucia is willing to help, but for posterity I've always found The Graphics Lab be be a good resource) and listing WikiProject Awards as they are created. Achowat (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

New Barnstar[edit]

This is a barnstar I created for the admins who do a lot of work in deleted non-encyclopedic pages.

Gnome-edit-delete.svg The deletion barnstar
Nice job in the field of deleting non-encyclopedic pages.

This could be an alternative of an existing barnstar or an all new one together. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If an admin is doing good admin-only work, I'd much rather see them be given The Admin's Barnstar. Just hitting the delete button isn't really something that seems worthy of recognition; but sifting through deletion discussions or understanding WP:CSD or WP:PROD enough to know to hit the right button, that's much more about being a good Admin than just deletion. Achowat (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Guestbook Barnstar[edit]

How about a barnstar for signing guestbooks. It could be an standard barnstar with all the info in it such as; This user signed "Example"'s guestbook! Be the next to sign" and we could use the guestbook logo. Mirror Freak 15:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This is what it could look like.

Guestbook barnstar "Examples" Guestbook Barnstar
This user signed "Example's guestbook! Be the next to sign!

Mirror Freak

Mirror Freak 15:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a personal user award to me. In fact, it's already listed there. Achowat (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Not only does it already exist, it's a pretty sad thing to award. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree that this seems more like a PUA. I do think that ways of encouraging more friendly communication between editors are good for Wikipedia (we're more likely to resolve conflicts efficiently if we're already friends with the person we're arguing with), but it is precisely the personal nature of such relationships that makes them better suited for the personal user space. RomanSpa (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)