Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals: Difference between revisions
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
'''No''' |
'''No''' |
||
#'''NO!''' Keep, but use a different description for awarding the barnstar. [[User:GK|gK]] [[User talk:GK|¿?]] 20: |
#'''NO!''' Keep, but use a different description for awarding the barnstar (see my comments below). [[User:GK|gK]] [[User talk:GK|¿?]] 20:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
||
'''Abstain''' |
'''Abstain''' |
||
Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
**I concur with Deathphoenix. I feel that maybe this type of award be given to those articles that exemplify the best articles that deal with Hollywood (i.e. actors, actresses, directors, etc). Wouldn't that make more sense? -- [[User:Riffsyphon1024|Riffsyphon1024]] 08:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
**I concur with Deathphoenix. I feel that maybe this type of award be given to those articles that exemplify the best articles that deal with Hollywood (i.e. actors, actresses, directors, etc). Wouldn't that make more sense? -- [[User:Riffsyphon1024|Riffsyphon1024]] 08:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
||
*** Oh, yes: I also agree. That's why I suggested we use it for the "Culture" category barnstar, below. – [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User talk:ClockworkSoul|'''Soul''']] 14:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
*** Oh, yes: I also agree. That's why I suggested we use it for the "Culture" category barnstar, below. – [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User talk:ClockworkSoul|'''Soul''']] 14:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
||
*Since I awarded the first Hollywood WoF barnstar, I would like to give my two-cents worth. The reason for giving the barnstar should be changed, but the barnstar itself should be kept. Here is my idea for the barnstar: If you look at the stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, you will see that there are the various names, and above each name is an icon for a field of endeavor (such as the recording industry). A few people have two stars (usually Movies and TV), but very few have more. [[Bob Hope]] has four stars, but only [[Gene Autry]] has stars in all of the categories. The people who work on the wikipedia are somewhat similar in that although they may dabble in multiple areas, they usually only shine in one. The [[Hollywood]] [[Walk of Fame]] [[Wikipedia:Barnstars|Barnstar]] should be for someone who has done very good work in multiple areas on the Wikipedia (but not necessarily barnstar-worthy work in any single area), or who has done outstanding work in at least two areas. The barnstar that I awarded [[User:AllyUnion]] is an example of the first instance. Someone who has shepherded several articles through the [[Wikipedia:Featured article|featured article]] process, as well as done a great job of playing [[whack-a-mole]] with [[Wikipedia:vandalism|vandalism]], would be an example of the second instance. [BTW: I think that there should be a Featured Article Barnstar that is given to anyone who has been responsible for at least three featured articles.] [PS: I don't know the reason, but [[User:AllyUnion put "I quit. Good bye." on their User page today.] [PS#2: Since this is one of the more obscure areas of the Wikipedia, you might allow for another week since any decision made here has no major time constraints.] [[User:GK|gK]] [[User talk:GK|¿?]] 20: |
*Since I awarded the first Hollywood WoF barnstar, I would like to give my two-cents worth. The reason for giving the barnstar should be changed, but the barnstar itself should be kept. Here is my idea for the barnstar: If you look at the stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, you will see that there are the various names, and above each name is an icon for a field of endeavor (such as the recording industry). A few people have two stars (usually Movies and TV), but very few have more. [[Bob Hope]] has four stars, but only [[Gene Autry]] has stars in all of the categories. The people who work on the wikipedia are somewhat similar in that although they may dabble in multiple areas, they usually only shine in one. The [[Hollywood]] [[Walk of Fame]] [[Wikipedia:Barnstars|Barnstar]] should be for someone who has done very good work in multiple areas on the Wikipedia (but not necessarily barnstar-worthy work in any single area), or who has done outstanding work in at least two areas. The barnstar that I awarded [[User:AllyUnion]] is an example of the first instance. Someone who has shepherded several articles through the [[Wikipedia:Featured article|featured article]] process, as well as done a great job of playing [[whack-a-mole]] with [[Wikipedia:vandalism|vandalism]], would be an example of the second instance. [BTW: I think that there should be a Featured Article Barnstar that is given to anyone who has been responsible for at least three featured articles.] [PS: I don't know the reason, but [[User:AllyUnion]] put "I quit. Good bye." on their User page today.] [PS#2: Since this is one of the more obscure areas of the Wikipedia, you might allow for another week since any decision made here has no major time constraints.] [[User:GK|gK]] [[User talk:GK|¿?]] 20:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
||
==Standardization of Barnstars: Category stars== |
==Standardization of Barnstars: Category stars== |
Revision as of 20:18, 6 March 2005
Part of a Wikipedia help series on |
Wikipedia Awards |
---|
![]() |
|
Awarded by co-founder Jimmy Wales |
Awards by WikiProject |
Barnstars and other personal awards |
Awards by number of edits |
See also |
|
Barnstar and Award Proposals (BAP) is where Wikipedians offer and discuss ideas regarding the "standard" barnstars and other awards, which may include, but are not limited to: creation of a new barnstar, altering or changing an existing barnstar or award, or delisting an award entirely.
Ideas and their discussions take the following guidelines into account.
General Guidelines
|
Creation of an Award
|
Definition of Purpose
|
The Image
|
Guidelines for barnstars only
|
Please note that these are not strict rules, chiseled in stone. Rather, they are guidelines agreed upon by the community as a way to standardize our approach to barnstars and awards.
Adding a proposal
Currently, making a barnstar or award proposal is very easy, and very informal:
- At the bottom of this page, create a new section with a clear title. Example: ===Remove the SplatStar===
- In the body of the section, describe your idea, and why you think your idea should be implemented.
- Don't forget to sign with four tildes: ~~~~
General consensus must be reached in order for a proposal to be enacted. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, the idea will be removed from this page and archived.
Discussion format
At the moment, there is not formally defined discussion format. This will likely change in the future.
Proposals
The Hollywood Walk of Fame Barnstar
I would like to move that we remove this from the page. Its purpose is vague at best: individuals whose fame and/or excellent work on the Wikipedia should be given a Hollywood Walk of Fame star (those whose deserves a Hollywood Star because they're famous, get a Hollywood Star). The "excellent work" portion is redundant with other barnstars. I don't see any reason to keep it around. – ClockworkSoul 01:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Poll: Should we remove the The Hollywood Walk of Fame Barnstar? (1/0/0) – Poll opened March 2, and will close March 9 (1 week should do it?)
Yes
- Yes, for the reasons I stated above. – ClockworkSoul 01:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes -- BRIAN0918 01:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, as per ClockworkSoul. Redux 03:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. Though the concept is nice, I think we should look at this more. So I wish for this to be gone, just for a short while. Zscout370 12:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. Replace it. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No
- NO! Keep, but use a different description for awarding the barnstar (see my comments below). gK ¿? 20:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain
Comments
- I'm not sure I'd go so far as to remove it completely, at least not yet. Maybe its purpose can be clarified instead? Also, it might be a good idea to actually incorporate the barnstar into the image, probably by replacing the actual star with a barnstar that looks like it. -- BRIAN0918 01:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This looks to me like just an excuse to use the "Hollywood walk of fame" image. Honestly, I'm not sure what we can even do with the idea. I don't think we need to try and salvage every bad idea that is unilaterally added to the listing. – ClockworkSoul 01:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with ClockworkSoul. This award is redundant at best. I see no reason whatsoever to try and salvage it. Regards, Redux 03:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This looks to me like just an excuse to use the "Hollywood walk of fame" image. Honestly, I'm not sure what we can even do with the idea. I don't think we need to try and salvage every bad idea that is unilaterally added to the listing. – ClockworkSoul 01:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that this award is redundant in its current form. There's nothing here that isn't covered in the other barnstars (such as the original Barnstar). However, this is a Hollywood star, and I think there's no reason why we shouldn't use it for entertainment articles. This barnstar could, for example, be used for the "Society" category below. --Deathphoenix 14:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I concur with Deathphoenix. I feel that maybe this type of award be given to those articles that exemplify the best articles that deal with Hollywood (i.e. actors, actresses, directors, etc). Wouldn't that make more sense? -- Riffsyphon1024 08:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Since I awarded the first Hollywood WoF barnstar, I would like to give my two-cents worth. The reason for giving the barnstar should be changed, but the barnstar itself should be kept. Here is my idea for the barnstar: If you look at the stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, you will see that there are the various names, and above each name is an icon for a field of endeavor (such as the recording industry). A few people have two stars (usually Movies and TV), but very few have more. Bob Hope has four stars, but only Gene Autry has stars in all of the categories. The people who work on the wikipedia are somewhat similar in that although they may dabble in multiple areas, they usually only shine in one. The Hollywood Walk of Fame Barnstar should be for someone who has done very good work in multiple areas on the Wikipedia (but not necessarily barnstar-worthy work in any single area), or who has done outstanding work in at least two areas. The barnstar that I awarded User:AllyUnion is an example of the first instance. Someone who has shepherded several articles through the featured article process, as well as done a great job of playing whack-a-mole with vandalism, would be an example of the second instance. [BTW: I think that there should be a Featured Article Barnstar that is given to anyone who has been responsible for at least three featured articles.] [PS: I don't know the reason, but User:AllyUnion put "I quit. Good bye." on their User page today.] [PS#2: Since this is one of the more obscure areas of the Wikipedia, you might allow for another week since any decision made here has no major time constraints.] gK ¿? 20:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Standardization of Barnstars: Category stars
(Credit for the original idea goes wholly to brian0918) Rather than be faced with a periodic addition of random topic barnstars, I propose that we preemptivey create a series of Category Barnstars, based primarily on the categories listed on the main page, used to reward brilliant work in articles in one of the following categories:
- Culture – Art, literature, music, philosophy, religion
- Geography – Geography, "nation" articles
- History – Archaeology, history
- Daily Life – Education, food & drink, language, sports & games
- Mathematics – (Propose rolling this into "science")
- Science – The "hard" sciences: Biology, geology, medicine, mathematics, medicine, minerology, physics
- Society – Economics, government & politics, law, media, royalty & nobility, war
- Technology – Technology, transportation
- Oddball – The types of articles listed in Wikipedia:Unusual articles
Implementing this system would, in the end, keep the number of barnstars at a manageable level by providing a number of very categories, thus preventing a "Barnstar Creep" that could eventually result in dozens of "niche" stars. This would also allow us to implement a stylistic standardization to these articles, giving these barnstars a common theme and/or "look and feel". – ClockworkSoul 06:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In preparation for a ginormous discussion, I've moved each header up one size, and added sections for each. Please keep discussion in these sections so that nobody's comments are missed and each can be easily archived. Add any image proposals to the appropriate section's gallery along with a number and your name (see example in Technology section). -- BRIAN0918 15:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Before we go and choose images, let's decide whether these are really the categories that we want. Anybody have any opinions? I for one, now think that we should roll Mathematics into Science. Also, for convenience and clarification, I took the categories from the scheme used in Wikipedia:Featured articles, and mapped it to an appropriate category. – ClockworkSoul 15:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
1. {brian0918}
-
2. (brian0918)
- As listed above, I think we can use the Hollywood Walk of Fame star for Society, unless you think Hollywood is too US-centric. --Deathphoenix 14:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe it is, maybe it isn't... but if we do use it, I think that we should: A) Incorporate it into a common "category" theme of some kind and, B) Clean up the image so that it looks like a barnstar rather than an self-taken picture of a Hollywood star. – ClockworkSoul 14:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe the word "Hollywood" could be taken out? -- BRIAN0918 15:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Here's a weak attempt on my part. -- BRIAN0918 06:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Looks good. I have no preference what you use the star for, and I don't mind if you remove it from the list to replace it with something else. My suggestion sat all alone on the talk page for a few months before someone gave me the award. I ask, however, if Hollywood Walk of Fame Barnstar is removed that an appropriate one be replaced on my user space. -- AllyUnion (talk) 18:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Of course - as far as I'm concerned, you've more than earned it. – ClockworkSoul 19:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I moved this star to Culture, where it's a bit more appropriate. – ClockworkSoul 14:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
1. Blue Marble Barnstar (brian0918)
- ClockworkSoul, we can use the Barnstar of National Merit for the geography topics. Zscout370 12:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I like that idea as well. Less work. -- BRIAN0918 15:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Per Redux's request at Wikipedia talk:Barnstars on Wikipedia, I've created a separate barnstar for geography. Here is a rough draft. Because the image of the Earth is nicknamed the "Blue Marble", I think Blue Marble Barnstar would be a good name for it. -- BRIAN0918 14:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think its a bit too soon to entirely take the BoNM off the table: after all, its a pretty good fit for a "Geography & Nation" star (which is pretty much what it is now, more or less). I just want to avoid as much redundancy as possible. – ClockworkSoul 16:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
1. Example
-
1. Example
- Perhaps the proposed Running Man Barnstar can be broadened in scope? (Just a passing thought)
-
1. Example
- I just can't think of anything for this, but I still think it should be kept separate from science, as it is category-wise. -- BRIAN0918 15:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I know that this is a Main Page category, but it really can't be awarded for too many things. It's not like "life" or "culture" that have literally tens of thousands of articles for each. I think that we should keep these categories as broad as possible, and roll math into science. If we decide not to, I would like to consider "economics" to be math, at the least. – ClockworkSoul 15:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
1. Atom1 (brian0918)
-
2. Atom2 (brian0918)
- My first thought about science was how bohring it can be :) The monitor I'm using for the next couple weeks is about 12 years old, so is not very good for doing work in photoshop. Let me know how it can be improved using your fancy 21st century technology. -- BRIAN0918 04:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Brian, you're just too punny! I like the "atomic star" thing alot; I was thinking along the same lines myself. – ClockworkSoul 17:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Might I propose a version? -- Riffsyphon1024 08:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
1. Example
-
1. Lightbulb1 (brian0918)
-
2. Lightbulb2 (brian0918)
- Picture this: a barnstar made of wires and steel plating. Need I say more?
- That idea sounds good (I was initially thinking of something similar), but it seems like it might go against the tradition of barnstars being very simple. Also, it might look weird to be awarded to someone who contributed a vast number of articles on the industrial revolution, for example. If someone made a high-tech barnstar that people liked, I'd probably vote for it, but for now, here's a rough draft of my attempt. Any comments? -- BRIAN0918 16:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- At the moment, I would vote for this one, I think. I like the lightbulb idea. – ClockworkSoul 17:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm neutral on this. I like the idea, but I don't like how bright it is. I was also thinking of maybe using little LEDs in the shape of a star, or maybe replace the star with circuit boards. --Deathphoenix 21:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That idea sounds good (I was initially thinking of something similar), but it seems like it might go against the tradition of barnstars being very simple. Also, it might look weird to be awarded to someone who contributed a vast number of articles on the industrial revolution, for example. If someone made a high-tech barnstar that people liked, I'd probably vote for it, but for now, here's a rough draft of my attempt. Any comments? -- BRIAN0918 16:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Added to list by ClockworkSoul. Used to award unusual articles (the first recipient would be exploding whales, I think).