Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikihalo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Neokid (talk | contribs) at 18:02, 10 March 2006 (→[[Wikipedia:Wikihalo]]: Comment.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Wikihalo

Seemingly useless. Currently there are two people who have been awarded a Wikihalo, one being Jimbo, and the other Angela, a Board of Trustees member. Do we really need to create a new heirarchy of users. Just give a user a barnstar if they are doing exceptional work. Pepsidrinka 01:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional nominations: I have added Wikipedia:Wikihalo nomination and Wikipedia:Wikihalo administration since the user created seperate pages instead of using subpages. Pepsidrinka 02:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone can give barnstars. Only the community as a whole can give a Wikihalo. Not so redundant, eh? And the instructions are suppossed to just be for the good of the community to enable the project to follow the path that the community as a whole sees most fit. The Neokid talk 18:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and BorgHunter. FreplySpang (talk)
  • Delete. This program is a very noble intention, but I'm afraid it may unnecessarily divide the community. The halo might also be offensive to some users because of its symbolic association with moral perfection. Of course, no Wikipedians (not even Jimbo and Angela) are perfect. I don't mean that humorous and well intentioned parodies are not acceptable, but I know that some users can be offended by secular applications of religious symbols. Anyway, truly deserving Wikipedians are rewarded with the unwritten respect of the community. --TantalumTelluride 21:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an award, and part of the Kindness Campaign. In fact, this is a completely inappropriate discussion, posted by someone who has had (no recent?) part of the Barnstars and Awards process. The award went through a vetting in the established process. the fact that it is a new award is why very few people have it. There can't be enough ways to say thanks to the people who volunteer a lot of time here. evrik 19:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the Kindness campain and couldn't find out where it was part of it. As well where did it go through a vetting in the established process? Mike (T C) 00:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The awards themselves are part of the kindness campaign, as for the archives... The archives aren't particularly organized. I hope that Neokid comes back online and has something to say about this. evrik 01:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to evrik: This has nothing to do with whether I have had any part in the "Barnstars and Awards process." This nomination was done in good faith as something I felt was not neccessary, and actually problemsome for the community. Nonetheless, this is a discussion of whether the page should be kept. So if the members of the community felt that this is a bad faith nomination, or that I overlooked something when I nominated it, it would have been speedy kept. Seeing how so far everyone who has given their 2 cents has expressed the deletion of this page (with the exception of yourself) proves that this is in fact an appropriate discussion. Pepsidrinka 00:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Pepsidrinka, "Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. A person acting in good faith would have posted some comments on either some of the discussions page before going right to a nomination to delete. evrik 01:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure that the nomination was in good faith and all, but it's not our procedure to nominate awards for deletion. Problems with existing awards are handled within the appropriate forums. Should the award be reformated? Maybe. Should it be moved to PUA? Perhaps. All of this can be handled in a discussion thread at the Proposals page. And when we bring PUA into the picture, this becomes quite clear, I believe: we have recognized any user's right to instate an award on his/her own and list it there. No user has had an award that (s)he listed at PUA deleted because others didn't like it (and there are some pretty weird awards over there) — different from the Barnstars on Wikipedia page, where the awards need to be approved by community consensus. Anything that is wrong with this award can be solved with a discussion in the appropriate forum: consensus to keep it as a wiki award? We can work on that there. Reformat the award? That can be dealt with too. If the consensus is that the award is not compatible with a wiki award, or if the creator doesn't wish to submit it to any changes, then we move it to PUA and that'll be the end of that. If it's moved to PUA, there is just no reason to delete it, when the community has already acknowledged the right of every user to create Personal User Awards. Anyone can create an award, as long as it is within the basic requirement of an award on Wikipedia: encourage a "wikivirtue". I can see that most of the people that have participated here are not regulars at the Award Proposals forums, so I gather they wouldn't be acquainted with how it works over there. Hopefully, this has been of use. And in light of all of this, here's what I propose: halt this MfD and start the proper discussion I mentioned, at the end of which the "worst" that can happen is the Wikihalo award gets moved to the PUA page. Regards, Redux 02:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Redux, and I have withdrawn my vote for deletion. --TantalumTelluride 02:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked very much at the past history on this award, but I like the idea of having some sort of more official award than simply barnstars. I can see issues with voting, but not enough to delete. However, I just strikes me as wrong to delete an award like this while there is an award-in-progress, it seems to me that would indicate it is still active. Here is the nomination. I would urge a strong keep for that, even if for no other reason. --Mathwizard1232 04:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Well the nomination you mentioned actually was supposed to end several hours ago, yet it looks like it is still active, despite the time-stamp at the top of the page. Pepsidrinka 04:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's funny you say that because Neokid as been away from wikipedia for several days and I don't want to step on his toes. evrik 04:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm glad you found that humorous. I wasn't implying anything, I was merely mentioning to Mathwizard1232 that the nomination in fact was over, as far as the timestamp indicated. You have since changed it, and that is fine. But as far as I knew at that time, the nomination had ended. Pepsidrinka 17:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I really don't know why it exists but... it does and it seems to me like it's a communal barnstar... If it had "official policy" slapped onto it I'd call it instruction creep but now it's like one of the many little groups. If you don't like the idea you can ignore it... that's what I plan on doing. I realllyyyy hope this doesn't lose me a chance at winning it though... ~_~ gren グレン 06:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP What is the problem with the community coming together to show their appreciation of our greatest users? By the way Pepsidrinka, CatherineMunro is currently going through the nomination process and I personally still have ideas for many more to come. The Neokid talk 16:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I see that the nomination process is in fact active NOW. That is because a user corrected the timestamp recently so I was under the impression that it had ended. Pepsidrinka 17:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikihalo&oldid=43166556"