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

Awards should not, in purpose or image, concern any nation, race or creed over any other.

Creation of an Award

General awards may be created and placed on the main award page by anybody as they see fit, so long as they do not violate the basic guidelines below.
Barnstars, however, are meant to be unique and exceptional: the addition of a new Barnstar should therefore be proposed and reviewed by the community, and be added to the Barnstars list only by community concensus on a page specifically designated for Barnstar and award discussion.

Definition of Purpose

All awards must encourage WikiLove, WikiCivility, and the other constructive aspects of the Wikipedia community, and may not award or promote the destructive (trolling, flaming or flamebaiting, vandalism, etc.).
The award's purpose must be explicitly spelled out in the description of the award.

The Image

The image used for an award may not violate any of the existing guidlines governing the use of images in Wikipedia.
The "Barnstar" image should be generally reserved for Barnstars, and rarely (if ever) incorporated into other awards.
No award may use or incorporate the image of any medal or commendation awarded by any nation or organization, past or present.

Guidelines for barnstars only

Barnstars should not be redundant, with the general guideline being "one barnstar, one WikiVirtue".
Barnstars should be general and broad in their scope.

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. – Clockwork Soul 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. – Clockwork Soul 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. gK ¿? 20:12, 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)
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)
  - Oh, yes: I also agree. That's why I suggested we use it for the "Culture" category barnstar, below. – Clockwork 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 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 ¿? 20:12, 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". – Clockwork Soul 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. – Clockwork Soul 15:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Culture

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. – Clockwork Soul 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)
- I think that actually works... nice job. – Clockwork Soul 17:46, 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. – Clockwork Soul 19:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I moved this star to Culture, where it's a bit more appropriate. – Clockwork Soul 14:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geography

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. – Clockwork Soul 16:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History

1. Example

Life

1. Example

Perhaps the proposed Running Man Barnstar can be broadened in scope? (Just a passing thought)

Mathematics

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)
  - Alright, I'm fine with merging them together into a "science and mathematics" group. -- BRIAN0918 15:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Science

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)
- It looks fuzzy to me. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:06, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - I used a cartooning effect to make the barnstar look like part of a diagram, something on which you'd see one of those old atomic models. Would simply sharpening it be enough? -- BRIAN0918 14:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Might I propose a version? -- Riffsyphon1024 08:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Of course: you can propose anything you like! This isn't a private club. ;) – Clockwork Soul 14:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Society

1. Example

Technology

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. – Clockwork Soul 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. --Death phoenix 21:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oddball

Added to list by Clockwork Soul. Used to award unusual articles (the first recipient would be exploding whales, I think).